-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Challenge To All Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
"* As in, convince the non-creationist. " Sorry, but this is a
.
Why? Prove it fails.
I'll explain why it succeeds:
The Cambrian Radiation fits the Evidences and Predictions based on the creation model
1. A sudden, abrupt appearance in the fossil record of highly complex forms of life with no evidence of ancestral forms in the lower strata.
2. All major types of life forms would appear explosively in the fossil record, fully developed body plans with all the characteristics that are used to define each peculiar kind, without evidence linking one basic form to another.
Evolution would never predict this, yet this is what's discovered.
james bond
Well-Known Member
You don't know RICE either ha ha.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Just what is the creation model on which the evidences and predictions are based?
Your information is out of date, which I assume you got from AiG, ICR or the like. The explosion/radiation has just about fizzled out.
As has been explained by others; more and more fossil evidence has accumulated of Precambrian Metazoa, such as Ediacaran Kimberella which appears to be an early form of mollusc, along with the jelly-fish like cnidarians, and trace fossils of other Precambrian Ediacaran animals that have come to light in the last twenty years or so. Moreover, the evolutionary radiation of animals doesn't appear to be all that abrupt. Most of the abrupt appearance of animals was limited to the bottom and sediment dwelling organisms, while those phyla occupying the open seas came about much later. All in all it's beginning to look like the Cambrian explosion wasn't much of an explosion at all, but rather a series of smooth evolutionary changes in organisms that occurred during the period. In fact, statistical analysis has shown that the Cambrian "explosion" wasn't any faster than any of the other animal radiations in history.
As noted in a paper in Integrative & Comparative Biology, V-43 I-1 "Taking the Pulse of the Cambrian Radiation" by Bruce Lieberman:
". . .rates of evolution during the Cambrian radiation, at least those pertaining to speciation, were comparable to those that have occurred during other times of adaptive or taxic radiation throughout the history of life."
source
source
And if you were at all familiar with fossilization processes it would be apparent why there's a scarcity of transitional forms, particularly that long ago, which gave the appearance of an "explosion." Of course scientists were well aware of this, so when they coined the word "explosion" it wasn't with the notion of species coming out of the blue in mind, as some creationist would like to believe. .
.
.
Last edited:
Itg is you who doe snot understand evidence. Hint, is not an opinion.
The apparent fact is that at least Matthew and John were eyewitness. Their text makes that abundantly clear. The chances are that Mark was also. Luke may or may not have been one.
Mt 14:16 - But Jesus said to them...
Mt 15:1 - Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said...
Mt 15:32 - And Jesus called His disciples and said...
Lk 8:1 - Soon afterwards, He began going around from one city and village to another proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God. The 12 were with Him.
All of those verse point directly to an eyewitness.
Here is an excerpt from ICR---1. The purported fusion site on human chromosome 2 is actually located in a different position on chromosome 2 than predicted by the fusion model. The hypothetical fusion site is also in an area with suppressed recombination (meaning that the fusion sequence should be very pristine) and should exhibit very little degeneracy, compared to standard telomere sequence. Telomere sequences in humans normally consist of thousands of repeats of the standard 6-base sequence “TTAGGG.” We found that the hypothetical fusion region is completely degenerate and vaguely represents anything close to intact and fused telomeres. An earlier 2002 research report by molecular evolutionists also made note of this extreme sequence degeneracy and the obvious discrepancies it presented for the evolutionary model.3
There is a lot more but I am not sure if it is copyrighted and I don't think I can post much that is copyrighted. If you really want to know the problems, check what the SCIENTISTS at ICR say and they alway put it in a scientific context, which is more than the evolution scientist do.
gnostic
The Lost One
Hey, the only person I see here, injecting BB into evolution-creationism debates are you and Guy Threepwood (in other threads).
I am only responding to your posts, whether you bring up BB.
You were the one who brought up the Big Bang in this thread in the first place.
You either got short memory, or you are liar. No one brought up BB until you did, so you are liar.
I have not seen or known any biologist who talk of the Big Bang and evolution as one and the same.
This is why I dislike creationists, such as yourself. They can't win any debate resorting misinformation, half-truth, and deliberate fraud. You also use straw man and frequently rely on moving the goalpost.
And btw, this thread was never about evolution.
Skwim, asked creationists to show evidences that God is responsible for creation - without resorting to talking about evolution. That was the only requirement skwim wanted.
You, Hockeycowboy, and james bond have failed miserably to do so.
You have always fall back to making things up about what you think or believe that evolution say, which mean you are trying redirect the focus away from creationism, because in your heart, you know that creationism really have no scientific answers. This is why you have been constantly deflecting answering people's questions.
You have been very evasive, just like a typical creationist.
You have not once presented any evidence to show god had created this world (planet Earth) and all the life within it, as presented and narrated in Genesis.
gnostic
The Lost One
The gospels were all written anonymously, omega2xx.
No one really know who wrote these 4 gospels.
The gospels were only assigned with those names by people of the early 2nd century CE.
Do you really think that they were written by Jesus' two apostles, Matthew and John?
Man, you are truly ignorant of the history of those gospels.
Most scholars believed that gospel of Matthew was written between 70 and 95 BCE. It is difficult to determine the exact date, but it is clear to them that the gospel of Mark (around 60 - 75 CE) was written before the Matthew gospel. And it is clear that Matthew gospel copied certain passages from the Mark gospel, using it as its source.
If Mark and the apostle Matthew were indeed the authors of the respective gospels, then why would the apostle rely on earlier source, if Matthew was indeed an "eyewitness" as you have claimed?
And if apostle Matthew was indeed both author and eyewitness, then do you believe that he really did observe Joseph marrying Mary, Jesus' birth, them going into exile in Egypt and what happened at Herod's palace?
You do understand what eyewitness mean, don't you?
It mean ACTUALLY observing the events yourself.
I don't see how it is possible for Matthew "eyewitnessing" events before he met Jesus.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Some cool things to know about the Cambrian Explosion. It lasted for 540 million years. Humans came to the scene in just a few million years, so the "explosion" lasted 100 times longer than human evolution, and we can see gradual evolution in it just as we can see in other strata. Secondly, one of the mysteries used to be why all life suddenly appeared without any signs before the explosion, but now, they do have biota and trace fossils from Neoproterozoic era.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Thank you for stating your beliefs. Now please tell me what reason anybody else has to believe them.
Just saying "God is true, the Bible is true, etc." doesn't actually make it true. Your argument is essentially, "you can't know something unless you already believe in it." That is nonsensical.
Good thing science doesn't operate that way.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
500 million years doesn't match 1 day from the Bible. The Cambrian explosion took more than 500 million years.
Except starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds, mammals, flowers, trees... They all show up in a much later stage. Also, all the life forms in the Cambrian didn't show up all at once. It's true that it's difficult to find the "linking" forms, but there is a progression still of lower to more advanced. In fact, they're so well separated that the evolution of trilobites has been used (even by Christian geologists) for oil exploration in the past, to be able to fairly exactly pinpoint the age of a strata
Well, it's not as huge of an issue as you might think. It's been blown out of proportions. After each extinction event (5 of them, if I remember correctly), there was a extremely rapid evolution of new species, so it's not unheard of at all or unexpected. The issue is rather why it was so quiet and calm before the Cambrian. The pre-cambrian was very slow. It was in some form of equilibrium. Then suddenly, an "explosion" happened. What that was, we don't know. Perhaps it was God, but we still see evolution after that "explosive" event.
--edit
Another point as well, not all scientists agree that it was that rapid.
Here's some more reading if you'd like: Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?
I didn't originally inject it.
I was not the firsst to bring it into the discussion.
I couldn't care less why you dislike creationist. The evolutionist resort to full unproven opinions and call them evidence. You always use strawman post because you have no evidence and changing he subject is your only response.
Why tell me, I didn't change the subect and i answered his original question.
You, Hockeycowboy, and james bond have failed miserably to do so.[/QUOTE]
Not on the say so of some one who does not understand even basic genetics.
What you have just said, is made up, from your extreemly biased opinion.
I am never evasive, you just have an understanding problem
You have not once presented any evidence to show god had created this world (planet Earth) and all the life within it, as presented and narrated in Genesis.[/QUOTE]
Here a good example of your lack of understanding or a lack of an 8th graded reading comprehension level.l I have same many times, there is no scientific evidence that God created the universe. I ALWAYS say it is the most logical explanation.
I have ask you evos several times to the evidence that mutations are the mechanism for a change of species. So far not one has offered an explanation of how. Makes me wonder if the truth finally dawned on them---mutations ARE NOT a mechanism for a change of species.
Would like to explain how they are or run away like the other have?
The gospels were all written anonymously, omega2xx.
No one really know who wrote these 4 gospels.
The gospels were only assigned with those names by people of the early 2nd century CE.
Do you really think that they were written by Jesus' two apostles, Matthew and John?
Man, you are truly ignorant of the history of those gospels.
Most scholars believed that gospel of Matthew was written between 70 and 95 BCE. It is difficult to determine the exact date, but it is clear to them that the gospel of Mark (around 60 - 75 CE) was written before the Matthew gospel. And it is clear that Matthew gospel copied certain passages from the Mark gospel, using it as its source.
If Mark and the apostle Matthew were indeed the authors of the respective gospels, then why would the apostle rely on earlier source, if Matthew was indeed an "eyewitness" as you have claimed?
And if apostle Matthew was indeed both author and eyewitness, then do you believe that he really did observe Joseph marrying Mary, Jesus' birth, them going into exile in Egypt and what happened at Herod's palace?
You do understand what eyewitness mean, don't you?
It mean ACTUALLY observing the events yourself.
I don't see how it is possible for Matthew "eyewitnessing" events before he met Jesus.
What about the one after he met Jesus?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You demonstrate your lack of understanding of the nature of evidence every time you post. Try to turn it around on those who do understand the nature of evidence isn't helping you.
I'm not sure how you'd even know that anyway given that you refuse to actually look at any evidence. Your position is quite bizarre.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The consensus of Biblical scholarship and textual criticism disagrees with you.
If these are eyewitness accounts, please explain why they are written in the third person.
By the way, they're all actually anonymous.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This thread isn't about that. It's about providing evidence for creationism without having to reference the theory of evolution. We're all still waiting ...
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
So what...
Look, omega2xx.
I didn't accept evolution, nor reject it, because I have never study it biology in any great depth for the first 37 years of my life. I simply had no opinion on evolution.
I was actually a believer of the bible from age 15 to 34, even though I never join any church, nor did I get "baptised". I nearly was baptised in my sister's church at 16, and almost join a different church at 19. A fight with my pastor, made me not bother to find another the church.
I did stop reading the bible the bible in 1986 (age 20), because I was too busy with my studies, and didn't touch the bible until 2000, but I was still believer in the bible during my period of limbo (1986 - 1999).
But when I did touch the bible again, at 34 (2000), my perspective had changed, and I had become "agnostic".
I didn't become agnostic because of the issues between evolution and creationism. No, I became agnostic because I understood the bible better than when I was a teenager.
Re-reading the bible, I recognised the errors and inconsistencies of the bible, and it had nothing to do with evolution.
I didn't understand evolution until 3 years later (2003), when I join my first forum, (not RF, it was another forum) when I came across debates between creationism and evolution. I didn't know anything about evolution, and wasn't aware of contention between the 2 sides.
So being curious about what the fuss was about, I borrowed my cousin's old biology textbook, read up on biology, including evolution.
I only became active in forum debates between the two sides, only when I have understood natural selection.
I don't have opinion or get into argument, unless I understand what I arguing about.
It doesn't make me a biologist, nor an expert in evolution, because I was never educated and qualified, but at least now I have better understanding on the subject.
I already understood creation and Genesis, but I was never a creationist. But I do find people who believe in creationism to be silly, because it isn't science.