On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:38:59 -0500, Antares 531
<gordonlrDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:46 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:23:17 -0500, Antares 531
>><gordonlrDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:52:12 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>><calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god's existence before
>>>>asking such a remarkably stupid question?
>>>>
>>>I didn't "demonstrate" anything. I just asked a civil question. Do you
>>>have an answer, or any rational ideas, or are you limited to juvenile
>>>level ranting?
>>
>>You would have to show how the Cambrian explosion is congruent with a
>>well-defined theory of creation.
>>
>The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago and lasted
>for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time all phyla that
>exist today came into being. I'm talking macro-evolution here, not
>micro-evolution.
Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Scientists don't
generally use those words, so I don't know exactly what you are stating.
>After the end of the Cambrian Explosion, this macro-evolution process
>stopped and no new phyla have come into existence since. "And God
>rested after His creation work."
If you are arguing for theistic evolution, I don't have a problem, but I
don't see any clear evidence that the Bible is describing this.
>How should one explain how the Darwinian macro-evolution process
>worked so vigorously during the Cambrian Explosion, then stopped
>completely, afterward? Gordon
Your question assumes facts not in evidence. You also imply, without any
evidentiary sup****t that there is something different about
'macro-evolution' (whatever you mean by that) from evolution as it is
observed.
>>>>>The evidence of this Cambrian Explosion is certainly verifiable, and
>>>>>indeed has been verified my many paleontologists, geologists and
>>>>>biologists.
>>>>>
>>>>>All phyla that have ever existed came into existence during this
very
>>>>>brief Cambrian Explosion interval. No phyla have come into existence
>>>>>since. This certainly slams Darwinian Evolution down. So, what does
>>>>>explain this sequence of events? Gordon
>>>>
>>>>How does it do that, moron?
>>>>
>>>Darwinian evolution, if it is valid, should have kept on working, even
>>>after the Cambrian Explosion. Why didn't it? What caused it to stop?
>>
>>Your question assumes facts that are contrary to the evidence. Evolution
>>has not stopped working.
>>
>There are two levels of evolution...micro and macro.
Please define.
>We have verified
>micro-evolution in our domestic animals. That is, by selective
>breeding we have produced a very large number of variations in our
>domestic animals. This micro-evolution process also continues in
>nature, without human intervention. So, yes, this aspect of Darwinian
>evolution is still working.
That's evolution.
>But, macro-evolution seems to have ceased and we have not been able to
>revitalize or demonstrate it at all. Not one new phyla has come into
>existence since the end of the Cambrian Explosion, some 520 million
>years ago.
What op****tunity would there be for new phyla?
>>>On the other hand, the Bible says that God's creation was completed
>>>and he rested. This is congruent with the observable facts described
>>>above.
>>
>>Which facts? Please specify why creation explains better than current
>>theories of cosmology and of evolution.
>>
>Geological/Paleontological records that show no new phyla after the
>end of the Cambrian Explosion of life forms.
Why do you think that matters?
>Creation and cosmology are in very harmonious agreement as far as I
>can tell. The beginning...without form and void (neither form (matter)
>nor void (empty space), just a point, then the big bang
>occurred)..."Let there be light"...the initiation of light after some
>of the big bang quark soup had transformed into matter that could emit
>light. And so on through the entire process.
I can see how you can try to map Genesis to science, but the story
itself doesn't really fit.
|
