Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Travis Paskiewicz
(Chuck, what kind of evidence are you looking for as it pertains to evolution? There is actually quite a bit.)
True evidence for me that evolution is true would be actual species alive that was part one type and part another. Say like as evolutionists claim that lizards turned into birds. If it happened once it would surely happen again. But no one can show a lizard with even one feather growing from it. If that truly happened there would be at one point considering that one species changes to another, would take a very long time, you would have to assume that one certain change would eventually produce at least one feather. But as you can see apparently since birds are here the lizards don't have to change any more.
How about whatever evolutionists claim turned into a dog. (and by the way wolves and coyote and the same kind) We see nothing, absolutely nothing of whatever changing into a dog, or a cat, or a person, or a rabbit, or pig. Another words you nor anyone can show anything changing from one thing to another. It's amazing that you and many others can continue to say this and that changed into this or that, but only by claiming that these bones of one complete creature turned into this other completely different creature and nothing in between. When you can't even prove that the first bones of the creature that supposedly changed into the other ever had offspring. And fortunately for you, you can claim this is all true even when nature has decided that it must have all the creatures it wants, so it doesn't have to change anything anymore.
There is no way if evolution is true that in all the years man has been trying to prove it that not one time has there been anything found that is in the stages of changing from one species to another. Not even a small change outside of its natural variations. How convenient for you.
(First and foremost there is the fossil record. The human fossil record is probably the most complete do to the fact that humans have often buried, entombed, and preserved their dead. There's upwards of 7,000 individual finds, encompassing more than 100 distinct species, over a period of more that 5.5 million years. You really have to research such things on you're own as Atheist Republic does not have a way to embed pictures. Plus there is just way too many anyway.)
How about you show me some sites that can prove 5.5 million years. And show me how they prove that there is proof that the bones show apes turning into man, without using any of the false claims that have already been proven wrong. By the way anyone can write in a book or on the internet and make a claim, but that is not proof. Someone can say they flew to Pluto, but that doesn't prove they did. You can use the Bible I know in the same way, but with a God it is possible. He decided how He wanted to show His truth. And it will only be shown in His way weather we like it or not.
(Then there is genetic evidence of evolution. This correlates to the fossil record. As small changes in genetic material occure, physical changes are observed in the fossil record.)
This is the only changes that are real. That is there are changes within the kinds, but that is there limitations. They still remain the same kind. There is no proof beyond that. Nothing changes from one kind to another.
(Then there is proof of concept. I suggest you research the developement of Biological weapons. There's actually a book called "Biohazard", that chronicles several scientists who worked within the Russian weapons program. It's a good read, on top of being a true story. Anyway, the scientists in the book used crude means of environmental control to force mutations in both bacteria and viruses to become more virulent and fatal.)
The only thing that happens here are changes within a kind. A virus doesn't change to bacteria, nor the other way around. This happens with certain viruses just going from one person to another. No virus nor bacteria will ever become a frog.
(All together, there is alot of scientific evidence for evolution. There's the fossil record that showcases examples of change throughout histort. Genetic records show a correlation between genetic changes and deviation in physical appearance. Bio weapons programs have shown that both genetic and physical changes occure in reaction to environmental changes, in small organisms easily effected we can even observe them occurring in our lifetime.)
Read answers above.
(But yes, Chuck, you have to research yourself. There is way too much evidence to list. The list and pictures that are publicly available could fill well over a thousand books... because it is showcased in literally thousands of books and research papers.)
So you and others claim, yet nothing that can't be refuted easily with another answer that agrees with the Bible.
Like I have said, it all depends on your world view. And since neither side of the isle can prove what we believe, it is all by faith. The only difference is evolutionists CLAIM they don't believe by faith. But they do. And God tells the truth that you do have to believe by faith.
Chuck, define 'kind'. I've asked you before to provide a comprehensive list of these 'kinds' you speak of (a link to a list is acceptable).
Cyber LN
Sorry for not getting back to you the last time you asked me that question.
Here is a sight that goes into a lot of info on kinds
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kind...
ROFLMAO
Creation science is not science this has been decided by law check dover trial. In an insane attempt to rebrand creationism as intelligent design to get around a law banning it for attempting to promote religion. The book of pandas and people im sure youve read it (your brainwashing was quite successful) pre 1987 it was a creationist book after 1987 it was reprinted as an intelligent design book THEY ONLY CHANGED TWO WORDS creator and creation to intelligent designer and intelligent design the rest of the book is the SAME hmmmm why what could possibly have happened in 1987 the Edwards v. Aguillard trial look it up it stated creationism was religious now skip ahead to the dover trial 2005 ill quote the decision oops no i wont its 139 pages long basically says id is both creationism and NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY
Kinds are not a scientific classification its a word used by a bronze age superstition.
Oh and this from earlier:
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.
Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
Lmale
News flash, just because someone has a law degree, or was elected to make laws, doesn't mean they know anything about how the universe began. And just because some court said kinds is something to do with religion, doesn't change truth no matter how badly they may want to kick God out of everything.
Hey Lmale the info about the fruit flies, what can I say, you nailed it. That just ends all possibilities of referring to kinds. NOT, how does that do away with kinds? All that shows is that it makes more sense that there are types within kinds that simply don't breed with other types in nature. That goes right along the lines of what the last site I posted was saying. That was that some types are only birthed in captivity.
I also want to clear something up about kinds. CyberLN asked about a list of kinds. Well it is probably very difficult to find all types of a particular kind. Considering that the only way to find out if one type is the same kind is to mate each different type. So the best way I can clear kinds up is like this. If someone can get two animals to mate, or extract seamen from one kind and inseminate another, or even use testubes, and there is an offspring, then that would mean they are the same kind. Now I'll guarantee that if you try doing any of those with a dog and a cat, you will never get offspring, because they are not the same kind. Nor can you get any other kinds that are not the same kind to reproduce.
Here is a site for you to look at. Though I'm posting one page you can read about Archaeoraptor, make sure you go to the bottom of the page so you can read several other pages that may cause you to research a little more before posting something you believe you are so sure of.
http://www.icr.org/article/8217/
Second Look Causes Scientist to Reverse Dino-Bird Claim
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Earth Sciences › Fossils Reflect Life's Original Diversity › Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms
Stephen Czerkas digs dinosaurs. His early advocacy for feathered dinosaurs makes his recent reversal that much more remarkable. His reexamination of a fossil—one that had been known as a feathered dinosaur—reveals the fruits of taking a closer look at spectacular claims.
Recently working with University of North Carolina's fossil bird expert Alan Feduccia, Czerkas imaged a Scansoriopteryx with advanced 3-D microscopy and high-resolution photography, visualizing features in the wrist bones, feathers and hind limbs. This year they published their results in the Journal of Ornithology.1
Back in 1999, the National Geographic Society created quite a controversy by prematurely announcing the discovery of a half-bird/half-dinosaur fossil they called Archaeoraptor.2 Czerkas and the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah purchased the Chinese specimen from an anonymous dealer at the Tucson gem show in early 1999 for the tidy sum of $80,000. The Society quickly announced the so-called "feathered" dinosaur before scientists carefully reviewed the specimen, which turned out to be a complete fabrication.
Stephen Czerkas had been intimately involved in the purchase and promotion of the Archaeoraptor specimen as a bird-like dinosaur. But he actually purchased bird and dinosaur parts that had been artificially combined! A short time later, author and researcher Jonathan Wells labeled the specimen the "Piltdown Bird" in memory of the infamous Piltdown Man hoax involving a composite of ape and human bones.3
In 2002, Czerkas and his wife self-published a book called Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight in which they discussed Scansoriopteryx in context of dinosaur evolution into birds.4 His stance on Archaeoraptor as a real fossil did a complete flip-flop shortly after its exposure as a fraud, and now his stance on Scansoriopteryx as a dinosaur has reversed as well.
This year he told science news outlet Eurkalert, "The identification of Scansoriopteryx as a non-dinosaurian bird enables a reevaluation in the understanding of the relationship between dinosaurs and birds. Scientists finally have the key to unlock the doors that separate dinosaurs from birds."5 It turns out the fossil is just another bird, not some bird-dinosaur hybrid it was promoted to be.
Who's to say the "key" that separates dinosaurs from birds isn't simply feathers? Only birds have them today. If not feathers, bird-specific bone anatomy is often enough to clearly separate birds from reptiles.6
This extinct bird's distinct anatomy fits Scripture's explanation that birds were birds and dinosaurs were dinosaurs from the moments of their creation on days five and six of the creation week. And the very fact that the bird specimen was fossilized, having been buried rapidly in mud, fits Scripture's explanation that all air-breathing, land-living creatures perished unless they were among the cadre on board the ark.
The fact that serious scientists had been willing to label Scansoriopteryx a dinosaur despite its distinct bird body and feathers surely says more about scientists and their "science" than it does about the fossil.
References
Czerkas, S. A., and A. Feduccia. Jurassic archosaur is a non-dinosaurian bird. Journal of Ornithology. Published online July 9, 2014.
Sloan, C. P. 1999. Feathers for T. rex? New birdlike fossils are missing links in dinosaur evolution. National Geographic. 196 (5): 98-107.
Wells, J. 2000. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Czerkas, S. J. (Ed.) 2002. Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight. Blanding, UT: Dinosaur Museum. (The museum website hosts an abbreviated version of the Scansoriopteryx book chapter, in which Czerkas wrote, "With the discovery of Scansoriopteryx, the concept of birds evolving 'from the trees down' is certainly supported more than the 'ground up' scenario.")
Bayez, R. Researchers declassify dinosaurs as being the great-great-grandparents of birds. Eurekalert. Posted on eurekalert.org July 9, 2014, accessed July 11, 2014.
Thomas, B. Fixed Bird Thigh Nixes Dino-to-bird Development. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org June 22, 2009, accessed July 14, 2014.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on July 18, 2014.
Here is another post from the website above.
I really like how much info is on this site, and that they let you know were they get there info. Looks like evolutionists have a problem to me, you should really check this site out and do some of your own research beyond just the ones that you agree with.
Ancient Fossil Looks Like Today's Acorn Worms
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
According to evolution, eons ago mere ingredients like mud, minerals, and methane somehow made themselves into some single-celled bacteria…some of those bacteria became worms, and some of the worms eventually became people. A newly described out-of-place fossil confronts this origins myth.
Since 1911, vaults at the Smithsonian have harbored fossilized worm-like creatures from Cambrian shales. Scientists recently rediscovered them, and Nature published their remarkable findings.1
The problem is that, although the fossils were found in some of the deepest fossil-bearing rocks, they look just like the modern acorn worms we see today.
Acorn worms, technically "enteropneusts," feature stacks of gill bars used to capture nutrients and exchange waste. Acorn worms are named for an acorn-shaped bulb they use to burrow into sea floor sediments.
Christopher Cameron currently studies at the Université de Montréal and co-authored the Nature report. He told National Geographic, "One of the things that blew my mind about this thing is that most animals in the Burgess Shale look nothing like modern-day animals, but this is so clearly an acorn worm. Except for losing the tube, the animal is virtually unchanged in 505 million years."2
The Nature study reported, "Here we provide direct evidence for a Cambrian enteropneust, and thus extend their known [fossil] range by approximately 200 million years."1
Now that is remarkable, to say the least. What does this fossil creature—with fully-modern complexity—say about the evolutionary story that fossils supposedly demonstrate a simple-to-complex history of life as one ascends the rocks? And are we to believe that a whopping 505 million years' worth of mutations and natural selection have performed no alterations to acorn worms?
Cameron did note one difference between the modern and ancient counterparts. His team's report described how some of the fossil acorn worms constructed tubes. Today's enteropneust varieties are tubeless.
Enteropneusts look similar to modern animals called "pterobranchs," which inhabit tiny tubes, while enteropneusts do not. The study authors entertain the idea that the Cambrian enteropneusts with tubes might have been evolving from enteropneusts into pterobranchs. The National Geographic coverage sensationalized this idea by proclaiming the tubed acorn worms as bona fide "Missing Links."2
But the Nature report was much more cautious—so cautious that the "Link" could just as well have been no link at all. The study authors wrote, "Whether S. tenuis represents a stem-group harrimaniid [an enteropneust worm family], a stem-group pterobranch, or a stem-group of pterobranch plus harrimaniid, or even a stem group hemichordate, is not certain."1 In other words, nobody quite knows what acorn worms may have evolved from or into.
Despite excitement about ancient tube-forming acorn worms, they form no discernible evolutionary link whatsoever. In fact, the most straightforward explanation is that they went extinct, while their non-tube-forming relatives simply survived.
Can evolution try to explain fossils of creatures that went "virtually unchanged" for hundreds of millions of supposed years? Yes it can, but not without imaginative stories to address the question of why mutations and natural selection were somehow absent over the vast time scales the stories require.
Can biblical creation explain these fossils? Yes it can, and without the added stories. Erasing the millions of years dogma also erases the unchanged body form problem. Noah's Flood buried ancient sea-floor creatures early in its destructive year, and although most of those delicate animals died forever, a few acorn worms survived the Flood and live today.
References
Caron, J-B., S. C. Morris, and C. B. Cameron. 2013. Tubicolous enteropneusts from the Cambrian period. Nature. 495 (7442): 503-506. Published online www.nature.com before print March 13, 2013, accessed March 20, 2013.
Dell'Amore, C. 2013. "Phallus" Worm Is Evolutionary Missing Link. National Geographic News. Posted on newswatch.nationalgeographic.com March 13, 2013, accessed March 20, 2013.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on April 8, 2013.
Hey were are all the changes in these microbes? Could anyone tell me, are some of the books like "Nature" and "The National Geographic" and some of the Authors of the articles in them, are were some of you get your info?
Read this and weep.
Why Do Creatures in Ancient Amber Look So Modern?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Gall mites are too small to see without aid, but scientists found two of them after scanning 70,000 amber droplets from Triassic beds in Italy. How much have mites evolved in the supposed 230 million years since they were entombed in amber?
Today's 3,500 species of gall mites live on very specific plant species, and most of them subsist on angiosperms. The majority live on the outer surfaces of their host plant, but some induce plant tissue to form swollen galls in which they live and after which they are named.1
Did gall mites exist in ancient times in their present forms? If these tiny creatures evolved from some other arthropod, then fossils ought to show a continuum of transformation from that arthropod ancestor to today's gall mites. But when scientists recently described some of the earliest gall mites from their amber-trapped and finely detailed fossils, they were surprised to find just the opposite—ancient gall mites look like modern ones.
David Grimaldi is senior author of a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that describes the new fossil mites.2 His group described a few minor differences between them and today's known species. But Grimaldi said that overall, "they're dead ringers for (modern) gall mites."3 The technical report said basically the same thing, where the authors wrote, "there is no question as their eriophyoid lineage [gall mite] placement."2
The researchers also described fossil traces of the plants that secreted the resin that hardened into the amber that trapped the gall mites. Although varieties of the same plant live today, this particular fossil variety is probably extinct. So, perhaps these fossil mite varieties went extinct along with the extinction of their host plant variety. And extinctions do not show evolution.
The same source of amber reveals the same phenomenon, where millions of supposed years of evolution have performed no substantial changes, in single-celled amoebae. Most fossil amoebae are identical to living species. Paleontologist Girard Vincent published descriptions of amoebae trapped in amber from France, saying that "Most of amber amoebae are morphologically indistinguishable from extant species."4 Amoebae from the same Italian Triassic ambers that contain these gall mite fossils are identical to the living amoebae species named Centropyxis hirsuta, according to Grimaldi's report.
The fossil amoebae and gall mites from Italian amber, like so many other amber fossils including spiders and lizards, show no vertical evolution.5
After 230 million supposed years, gall mites are still gall mites, and most amber-encased amoebae are exactly identical to live species. If evolution was "on hold" for that long, maybe it has been "on hold" since the very beginning.
References
Plant gall formation requires advanced tissue culture technology. See: Thomas, B. Altruistic Aphids: an Evolutionary Anomaly. ICR News. Posted on icr.org March 17, 2009, accessed August 29, 2012.
Schmidt, A.R. et al. Arthropods in amber from the Triassic Period. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print August 27, 2012.
Prehistoric bugs from time of dinosaurs found frozen in amber. Associated Press, August 27, 2012.
Vincent, G. 2012. Fossil Amoebae (Hemiarcherellidae Fam. Nov. from Albian (Cretaceous) Amber of France. Paleontology. 55 (3): 653-659.
Thomas, B. Scan of Amber-Trapped Spider Shows Recent Origin. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 27, 2011, accessed August 29, 2012.; Thomas, B. Fossilized Gecko Fits Creation Model. ICR News. Posted on icr.org September 8, 2008, accessed August 29, 2012.; Thomas, B. Amber-Trapped Spider Web Too Old for Evolution. ICR News. Posted on icr.org November 20, 2009, accessed August 29, 2012.; Thomas, B. Ancient Amber Discovery Contradicts Geologic Timescale. ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 19, 2009, accessed August 29, 2012.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on September 7, 2012
Here is another, I know this is going to hurt but I just want you to see the truth!!!
Are there any more questions or arguments you would like to make.
There are is a lot more information on this site. You really should visit this site and read what those that would lie to get you to believe what they want you to, are not your friends. They just want you to deny God so they are not the only one's, and they can feel better about living a life of sin.
I really care about everyone of you. Eternity is really to long to be wrong.
"When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of a supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we chose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" George Wald: "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954
http://www.icr.org/article/8217/
the Cambrian Explosion Problem Solved?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Cambrian rock layers contain many strange animal fossils, and very few fossils appear in layers below them. Called the "Cambrian explosion of life," the creatures in these layers come from all the major groups of animals alive today (including fish, which represent the vertebrates), plus many more that later became extinct.
Evolutionists, starting with Charles Darwin, have had a difficult time explaining why such richly diverse aquatic life forms appeared so suddenly and with no trace of evolutionary ancestry in lower (pre-Cambrian) rocks. According to neo-Darwinism, new life forms develop through time, chance, and death. Without the time, the formula cannot work, and yet Cambrian fossils are a parade of well-designed creatures that lived at the same time, not in separate evolutionary ages.
This problem is what some scientists term the "Cambrian Conundrum,"1 and researchers recently made another attempt to solve it. But their scenario, published in the journal Science, is a series of unfounded ad hoc stories coated with a scientific-sounding façade.
The standard tale is that Cambrian creatures did not evolve until about 500 million years ago. In contrast, these authors suggested that animals were actually alive and evolving 800 million years ago. But without the fossils to support their story, why should other scientists believe it?
Their answer was to ignore the fossils and emphasize molecular clocks. When the idea of a molecular clock was first conceived, researchers believed that DNA bases change at a steady rate over time, and thus "tick" at a reliable rate.
However, a decade of abundant research has clearly shown that DNA base change rates are not steady at all, and they are restricted to mutational "hot spots" and non-lethal changes that are different for various genes. For these reasons, and because most molecular clock-based evolutionary histories are markedly different from fossil-based ones, researchers routinely "calibrate" molecular clocks to fossils of supposedly "known ages."2, 3 The molecular clock estimates in this Science study were adjusted to 24 fossil-based "ages."
Thus tuned, the researchers' clocks indicated that "the last common ancestor of all living animals arose nearly 800 Ma [million years ago]."1 This falls within the range reported by Stony Brook University's Barry Levinson, who wrote in BioScience in 2008 that the molecular-based histories constantly contradict the fossil-based histories of life on earth.4
But if this molecule-based age of 800 million years is true, then how did animals avoid fossilization for 300 million years?
The Science authors dismissed this problem and wrote that "teasing apart the mechanisms underlying the Cambrian explosion requires disentangling evolutionary origins from geological first appearances, and the only way to separate the two is to use a molecular clock."1 In other words, they asserted that molecular clock procedures, though known to be unreliable, provide the real evolutionary history, not fossils.
The fact that these authors calibrated their "clock" to fossil age assignments proves that their clock was just as unreliable as prior clocks. It relied on the very fossil ages that their attempted solution to the Cambrian Conundrum tried to avoid! They can't have it both ways, and they should not have cherry-picked parts of the fossil record to serve their story—or the seven genes that best served their molecular clock estimates.
The Cambrian Conundrum is still a fossil-based problem for evolution. But now that evolution-based molecular clocks fly in the face of the evolution-based history attached to fossils, the conundrum has only worsened.
But the creation model suffers no such difficulties. Since vast marine animal varieties were killed and deposited at the same time when swept up and buried by Noah's Flood, it would be expected to find a sudden "explosion" of them in the rock record.
References
Erwin, D. H. et al. 2011. The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals. Science. 334 (6059): 1091-1097.
Thomas, B. Darwin's Evolutionary Tree 'Annihilated.' ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 3, 2009, accessed December 2, 2011.
Thomas, B. New Study Contradicts Flower Fossil Dates. ICR News. Posted on icr.org April 9, 2010, accessed December 2, 2011.
Levinton, J. S. 2008. The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence. BioScience. 58 (9): 862.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on December 12, 2011.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Brian_Thomas
And that's the best you have is some wiki person giving their opinion. He did show he has some degrees. But I guess that the people you support must have better degrees than he Brian does huh? How about checking out his references. You simply don't want to accept what He has to say because he shows what you don't want to accept.
You should do some research on what several evolutionists have said about evolution at times, because they know that they can't prove it to be true. They should do more research before they make their claims. How is it that when they find certain fossils they don't do enough research to see if there are organisms just like them still living?
Chuck, grab a clue. Evolutionary theory does not *require* living things to evolve. And it certainly doesn't suggest that all living things have, do, or will evolve at equal paces with each other.
CyberLN
Evolutionary theory does not *require* living things to evolve.
What a statement, and truth doesn't *require* anything living in the past to have evolved.
That is not what I asked for, Chuck. I asked for a comprehensive list of these 'kinds' you speak of.
Oh and btw ken hovind pushed that book fully aware of the fact that its bullshit hes a liar and youd rather listen to him than 93% of scientists and over 2 billion christians.
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evo...
http://io9.com/pope-rails-against-intelligent-design-says-god-isnt-a-165...
By the way phones working finally well sort off i spent £35 replacing the screen (broke ass now) but it wont connect to the satalite everything else works and ive got wifi but no calls or texts.
I swear this months been so bad i almost (ALMOST lol) believe someones pissed at me. Broke the phone sofa fridge freezer washing machine my beds hanging on by its fingernails wrote off my mobility scooter totalled they are ending my contract as there was only a few months to go the insurance pays for the rest of the contract, and my kitten was run over i had to id the body and unfortunately the new meds are helping my memory.
Chuck you been asking god to smite me?
Just been praying He will show you truth, and do whatever it takes to bring you to Him.
I gave you a golden opportunity for a joke and you let me down im dissapointed.
Why joke about someone's destiny I really want God to show you truth.
God will not condemn you for the things you say about Him or His son. He knows your being deceived and will forgive you, if you repent and ask. Even though you treat Him the way you do. And yet you claim He is evil. Unfortunately most people have to be brought low before they will look up to Him. But you don't have to, you can turn towards Him and seek His face and He will show you truth. And then you will stand with Him, because you will understand the spiritual side of life.
Everyone goes through hard times. The sun shines upon the saved and the lost, and the rain falls upon the heads of the lost and the saved. But it's amazing how God can give you peace in times of trouble.
Last year I was given some news that as soon as I heard it I could feel my blood through my whole body start to boil, then quicker than I started to feel that, this peace came over me that was not of myself. I wouldn't have been able to do that after what I had heard. God gave me His peace which paseth all understanding. And things turned around unbelievably. You can have that also.
But I will say, be careful, for He will eventually give up on anyone that keeps turning Him away. And the results could be costly.
I'll keep praying for you Lmale. I do want to walk the street of gold with you one day.
Chuck your a fundamentalist theres a reason you cant spell it without mental.
I tell you creationism is id and the reason is fraud in other words a lie so what credability does anyone in creationism and id have?
Ive given you links to christian websites that explain evolution.
Every single argument against evolution from you has come from creationist sites dont you get it they are not bound by the rules of the scientific method because its not science.
You cant trash evolution without trashing the scientific method which gave you every piece of technology you have ever had and will be responsible for every technology made in the future.
All science uses the same rules of evidence observation predictions and independent unbiased peer reviews crrationism has none of that at all and makes shit up.
The creationism museum claims a stegosaurus was on the arc. Since we know noahs arc was plagerised that cannot be true. Not a thing in noahs arc is true not even the shape of the boat the true arc built from an ancient babylon tablet that predates judaism was round and worked (though too small for two of every animal a fact shared by christianises version) the boat from noahs story would not have been possible with the design and materials claimed it would have twisted itself apart.
Why do i mention that because creationism has to have the arc as true because all creationism is comes from the bible.
Try reading some evolution material it is not only backed by evidence observations SUCCESSFUL predictions but it makes sense and its satisfies occams razor. It requires brainwashing to make creationism make sense and it does not satisfy occams razor.
Oh and noahs story makes no sense at all why not magic the world to nothingness and start over would make more sense than magically summoning 2 of each 'kind' magically making the inside of the arc bigger than the outside magically keeping the plants alive the list goes on infact why not just make a floating island. Your god has no imagination lol.
Hey did you know your god was married?
Lmale I have told you many times, anyone can call themselves a Christian. You could even call yourself one, but that doesn't make you one.
Also why would I go to the one's that only want tolie for the sake of there world view?
How about that Cambrian period? How did all those extremely complex organisms come to be anyway?
Oh by the way Lmale did you know that there is at least 300 stories about the Arc from many different societies? Makes me believe that when God confounded the people with different languages, that those people knew of the true story from their grandparents that were on the Arc. So they passed it down through the generations. And the only difference is that they drew pictures of what they thought it to look like by the types of boats they used or imagined.
Also have you seen the Arc that a man built in I think it was Switzerland, and it really floates. Imagine that.
Theres only one arc been built to specs from a myth and that was the ancient babylonian version the round one. Your probably thinking of that. Specialist ship builders using the design and materials from the bible could not build an arc that wouldnt tear itself apart.
Sure there are alot of flood myths but im talking about a direct path of plagerism traced back from christianity to judaism to ancient babylon hell it even stole the line the animals went in two by two. And the babylonian version has been traced back to ancient sumeria.
no big shocker there are a lot of flood stories, in an area that floods pretty much every year...
Nyarlathotep
They don't have to build large boats for those floods do they.
I'm glad you believe everything you read that supports what you want it to be.
That was to Lmale
If thats in referral to me saying they built a round arc
1 i dont believe everything i read if i did i would have stayed a christian roflmao its because i dont believe everything i read that i started my journey to atheism. Id also say the majority of atheists need evidence so dont just believe everything they read. If we did not have the scientific method which includes independent peer review from unbiased proffessional scientists (something creationism/id does not do they have funded a christian staffed christian owned science journal to publish papers in an attempt to fake peer review) i would doubt the whole of science unless i had verified it personally.
2 it wasnt just a news article first a 4000 year old tablet from ancient Babylonia was found then an independently peer reviewed paper was published followed by news on tv and in papers followed by a documentary making the arc and we saw it being built finally news reports on the documentary.
Yup thats enough to convince this skeptic.
Lmale Lmale Lmale,
First, I said you believe everything you read THAT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE, EVEN IF IT IS WRONG, in other words.
Second, I don't care if you can name 10,000 people, movies, magazine articles, tv news, lawyers, government employees, scientists, or any one else you want to. Even if the majority of the world claims what you are about the Arc, doesn't mean that they are right. There is nothing that proves the Bible to be wrong. You just don't want it to be true, so you will accept anything to the contrary.
Chuck,
First, some organisms that are alive today haven't evolved much. They're called living fossils, and they have been known about for a very long time. But I'm glad to see that you have pointed out a very well known occurence in evolution with your examples of gall mites and acorn worms. There are other exampless including horse shoe crabs, coelicanths, an cyano bacteria. Sometimes certain organisms have reached an evolutionary apex, in which no change is required for long periods of time. This can occure for several reasons, first being there is no environmental change or there is no significant change in competition. Acorn worms and gull mites may be the two most recent examples. Cyano bacteria themselves are considered one of the "pioneer" life forms that helped terrascape earth. They are the oldest known organism clocking in at 3.5 billion years old.
Second, the "Cambrian Conundrum" as you explained it... you clearly have no idea what the fuck your talking about. The Molecular Clock you speak of is a highly conditional mathmatical theory. It works by calculating how many generations, or reproductions, it takes to neutralize a new gene among a population to have a distinctly new trait. It works with time generalizations, i.e one period is twice as long as the last. It does not give concrete dates, and is only useful if campared against known occurences to postulate a possible time frame for an earlier one.
Second, why are you talking about Noah's arc? That story has so many holes in it it isn't funny. But just for the sake of arguement, I'll list them. There isn't any geological evidence for a world wide flood. Flooding is in the oral traditions of many cultures because the earest cultures sprang up around rivers and are known as the "River Civilizations". So yes, they all undoubtedly feared destructive accessive flooding in thier respective areas. Even for the amount of known animals alive today, you would need a boat the size of a large island to feed and water two of every animal for 40 days. Getting every animal in the time frame is impossible. Many of the animals, especially the ones in the americas, would have had to swim across an ocean, with no food or water to get on the arc. The ocean journey would undoubtedly be longer than 40 days they needed on the boat to survive the flood anyways. Did I miss anything?
the building of habitats for some species to survive on the arc alone would take 50 years for us today lol
Noah did it without or technology and in an impossible time frame.
Not counting the sea kingdom of course, where the pressure of the water will change drastically killing 90% of them.
I still wonder how did Noah save those? Since we wouldn't be able to do it today in a practical sense on a boat.
Pages