On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:27:03 -0500, Antares 531
<gordonlrDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:52:07 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>
>>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:
>>>
>(snip)
>>
>>>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.
>>
>Macro-evolution entails developing a new species or a variant of a
>species that can no longer cross-breed with the original members of
>the source species.
>
>Micro-evolution is much less complex, and is what we observe in our
>domestic animal selective breeding and in things like SARS drug
>resistant bacteria. For example, a Siberian Husky dog and a Border
>Collie dog both came from the same ancestral roots, and are still the
>same species, but they are significantly different in many respects.
>Gordon
They're both creationist canards so they can pretend one doesn't
happen.
All there is, is evolution.
>>>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.
>>
>That is my point, too. There is no CLEAR evidence but there seems to
>be some reasonable connection or some very phenomenal chance involved
>in the writings of the Biblical passages on the creation. My purpose
>for opening this thread was to encourage cross-talk with others who
>might be able to shed some light on the subject. I'm searching for
>answers, not caustic arguments, but for some reason a great many
>atheists seem to take my questions as a challenge of their position
>and therefore they respond very caustically. Maybe they really are
>very insecure...who knows???
1. Stop lying.
2. The Bible is irrelevant in the real world outside your religion.
3. Evolution is nothing to do with atheism or vice versa.
4. You're not challenging anything.
5. You get the reaction you do because you are a pig-ignorant, stupid
liar.
Was that clear enough even for you?
>I'm not stating that I KNOW that God used some form of evolution to
>create the creatures of this planet, but at the same time I can't
>argue that He did not. What we see in the paleontological/geological
>records and interpret as a 10-20 million year process of evolutionary
>development may have happened in an instant, and may have been
>accomplished by means other than the Darwinian evolutionary process.
>The jury is still out on this, so to speak, and I'm not willing to
>cross either option off the list until I learn a LOT more about the
>whole scenario.
God is utterly irrelevant in the real world because it is merely one
of hundreds of different religious beliefs.
The jury is only "out" in the deluded fantasies of religious
fundamentalists incapable of thinking outside their religion.
>The thing that blocks me from accepting the Darwinian Evolution
>explanation is that what ever it was that progressed so vigorously
>during the Cambrian Explosion seems to have halted entirely at the end
>of this 10 - 20 million year interval and has remained halted during
>the 520 million years since. On the other hand, the Biblical Genesis
>story about God having created the creatures then He rested seems to
>fit amazingly well. Gordon
Get an education and stop wiping your stupidity and ignorance in our
faces.
>>>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.
>>
>Google macro evolution or micro evolution. There are many very well
>presented sites on these subjects. Here's a link to one such site;
>http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
Macroevolution and microevolution are creationist canards.
There is no controversy outside the deluded imagination of
creationists who are in denial about the real world.
>There is indeed an enormous difference between macro and
>micro-evolution. We can produce micro-evolution quite easily, and it
>doesn't even require a sophisticated lab setup. Domestic animal
>selective breeding is a micro-evolution example.
Macroevolution and microevolution are creationist canards.
>But, macro-evolution has never been demonstrated in the lab, and no
>paleontologic/geologic evidence has ever been found indicating that
>macro-evolution has happened since the end of the Cambrian Explosion
>of animal life on this planet.
Liar.
Go to your nearest Natural History museum, and you will see what you
pretend doesn't exist.
> Maybe the Cambrian
Explosion was the
>result of this planet having been "seeded" by aliens or some such. ;-)
What a ****ing moron.
>What ever the case, there are far more questions to be answered than
>there are existing answers. To duck behind Darwinian Evolution and
>conclude that this explains it all is a VERY serious mistake. Gordon
Good thing that is just your dishonest straw man.
>
>>>>>>>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?
>>
>This is a very prudent question. I simply do not have the insights
>that would enable me to determine what would be needed or what would
>instill a new phylum. As a crude guess, just to illustrate what I'm
>talking about, perhaps some life forms based upon silica instead of
>carbon might be possible. Please note that I am not suggesting that
>this is possible. I am just using this bit of fiction to express the
>idea that I'm talking about. The main thing is that I can't accept
>that the present 7 or 8 phyla are all that have room to exist on this
>planet. Something like 28 phyla existed during the Cambrian Explosion,
>but most of them died off, later. Gordon
Then get an education.
>>>>>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?
>>
>I'm not saying that it matters, it you mean by "matters," that the
>earth could not have been workable with any different sequence of
>events. All I'm saying here is that it whets my curiosity. Why did the
>Bible describe a creature creation sequence that fits so harmoniously
>with the paleontologic/geologic records that are attributed to
>Darwinian Natural Selection evolution? Gordon
It didn't, moron.
>>>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.
>>
>I disagree here. I think the Genesis story fits amazingly well with
>the science we know, and as we gain more insights into science I
>expect we will find an even more exact match. God created the entire
>multiverse, including all the natural laws. Why would He have used
>something "outside" these natural laws to do all this?
It doesn't, moron.
Why do you keep talking about your pretend friend as though it were
granted as real outside your religion?
>The Genesis story was given to us in a very primitive
>language/communication style, and this was done so the earliest people
>who received this information could grasp the core meaning and
>understand all that they needed to know.
It is their fairy tales, moron.
>Then, 3500 years later, as humanity advanced into the age of science,
>and we are motivated to search for greater in-depth understanding, we
>are still able to read those ancient writings and fit them into the
>science we now understand.
Hardly, liar.
>
>We find that science corroborates the Bible and the Bible corroborates
>science.
Where, liar?
> No one at any time was at an advantage or a disadvantage
>because of their social structure and level of scientific
>understanding. All could read and glean the necessary information from
>those ancient writings. Gordon
Hardly, liar.
|
