Nah, it still makes the point. The argument "This must have been created all at once, because if I take away some of its parts, it stops functioning", isn't very good....at all.
intelligent design vs creationism
- Thread starter snr5557
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Perhaps you could explain the Cambrian explosion. Please do so in your own words as I haven't the time to dawdle with link after link.
just asking your permission so be nice -- is it to late? :unsure: to add " really" in front of the ---stupid ?snr5557 said:
No.
Is this necessary to the debate? Do you have nothing else to add?
if i can't laugh in heaven, I dont want to go there.
Martin luther
Your house would not exist if it was built one board at a time with even just a 10 year interval between boards.River Jordan said:
There would be nothing left standing when the time came to put the roof on.
If I was a true evolutionist I would have said 1000 years between boards but I am trying to go easy on you.
Not to mention nails and hammers would have to evolve at exactly the right time and place to be ready to fasten the boards.
On that same token we cannot have the thorax of a honey bee evolving for even one week waiting for all the rest of the honeybee to assemble itself .... let alone spread the construction of the honey bee over millions of years.
Take away some of its parts? That is not what is being said. Of course a house is still a house if you remove the door and perhaps even the roof. But trees and rocks do not decide to jump together and create a house.River Jordan said:
Irreducible complexity cannot be debunked. The best you can do is ignore it or think on something else / shift focus / do a magic trick with miss direction.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
but you are the one giving 'house' its meaning, kingj.
Eyes are complex and based on the wide variety of eyes in nature-from almost blind cave dwelling animals, to basic compound eyes of insects, to predatory animals - animals have evolved eyes that benefit the species they belong to.
irreducible complexity is as human a construct as the word house.....
Eyes are complex and based on the wide variety of eyes in nature-from almost blind cave dwelling animals, to basic compound eyes of insects, to predatory animals - animals have evolved eyes that benefit the species they belong to.
irreducible complexity is as human a construct as the word house.....
LOL! "Please explain in an online forum, in your own words, a topic that scientists devote volumes and volumes of books to." Nah, that's not asking much!ChristianJuggarnaut said:
And let's be honest here....are you genuinely interested in whatever information I would post? There's a very, very consistent pattern in this forum of creationists saying "Where has this been seen", "explain that", or "show me your information", and then not even bothering to read what I post in response.
So in essence, you're asking me to write a thesis on a very complex and multi-faceted subject......that no one will bother to read. Do you understand my reluctance now?
Again Arnie, whoever gave you the impression that that's what evolutionary science says wasn't telling you the truth. But I guess if you're dead set on keeping these misconceptions and never correcting them, there's nothing anyone can do. Ignorance can be overcome; willful ignorance cannot.Arnie Manitoba said:
The claim was based on that the thing in question had to be "fully functional". If you take away the door and roof, it no longer functions to keep out the elements and keep its occupants warm and dry.KingJ said:
How in the world do you know? How much study have you put into the subject, including the scientific community's response to this specific creationist argument? And be specific on what you studied.
You are probably right, long posts are seldom read and those with seventeen "click here's" are certainly a waste of time on the poster's behalf.
However, you could post a few sentences as to what you have researched on the Cambrian and how the fossil record clearly shows organisms fully formed with no precursors in what can only be termed as an explosion.
However, you could post a few sentences as to what you have researched on the Cambrian and how the fossil record clearly shows organisms fully formed with no precursors in what can only be termed as an explosion.
Have you considered the people who were healed by Jesus? Or the one who He raised from the dead? Or 1Cor.15:52, where we find that the resurrection, where we receive a brand new body, will take place in a proverbial instant? Why limit God by comparing Him to man? Yes, there is a time frame involved in all these things. But how does that prove evolution? Evolution is about things changing into other things and more things, evidently by sheer chance, not things being built or things growing, both according to a set of plans.River Jordan said:
Willie,
Good points. I have tried to determine if there is anything in the bible that can be believed according to these individuals but have been unsuccessful in prying it out.
I think I will keep trying at least for a short period.
Good points. I have tried to determine if there is anything in the bible that can be believed according to these individuals but have been unsuccessful in prying it out.
I think I will keep trying at least for a short period.
Actually, there are precursors to the organisms that are found in Cambrian strata. Keep in mind, the "Cambrian explosion" took place over a period of 60 million years.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
I didn't compare God to man. I simply applied an analogy to a different set of situations to demonstrate the fallacy involved.williemac said:
Oh brother....I have no idea why you think my response to that analogy was a "proof of evolution". :wacko:
Sixty million years is nothing when compared to evolutionary theory especially if you are talking about natural selection of random mutations. I am sure you are aware of the time constraints involved there.
You are incorrect on the precursors. Most phyla appear with none and relatively sudden as explained above.
Click here and a short YouTube .......just kidding.
You are incorrect on the precursors. Most phyla appear with none and relatively sudden as explained above.
Click here and a short YouTube .......just kidding.
Nope, I've not seen anything substantive to show that the Cambrian was not long enough.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
*sigh*
I dug up an older summary I wrote (for a debate class) as an undergrad on just this subject. Since you asked....
Within the last few decades, a plethora of pre-Cambrian fossils have been discovered. Some examples include organisms in the genus Rangea, who represent a precursor to the Middle Cambrian Thaumaptilon, with members of Fasciculus being intermediate between the two (Dzij 2002). Others include benthic coelenterate medusoids that have impressions of tentacles (Gehling 1991), linking them to mollusks. There are also pre-Cambrian organisms that resemble primitive sea anemones (Gehling 1988).
This and other evidence has led even previous skeptics of Ediacaran to Cambrian evolution to change their minds. Clowes (2004) describes the situation "For some years a number of authors (e.g. Seilacher 1984, McMenamin 1986) have argued that the Ediacarans were unrelated to any living group of organisms…However, this view has always encountered opposition and now appears to have lost much of its support."
Even some of the remaining skeptics are conceding that at least some of the Ediacaran fauna are related to Cambrian organisms. Most now (Seilacher 1992; Buss and Seilacher 1994) concede the existence of cnidarian coelenterates known as the Psammocorallia. This group may have included all four classes of modern cnidarians (Morris 1993).
Annelids are also known from pre-Cambrian strata (Glaessner 1976) as well as echiurid worms (Glaessner 1979). Almost half of all modern phyla are worms, so it is certain that at least some modern phyla appeared in pre-Cambrian eras.
Also, some early Cambrian fossils show characteristics of more than one phylum, which makes their classification difficult. But this is exactly what we would expect under the evolutionary paradigm. Cambrian lobopods represent transitional morphologies between several living phyla. The oldest lobopod known from early Cambrian strata is the Xenusion, which shows commonalities to both palaeoscolecid worms and to living onychophorans and tardigrads (Dzik 1989). Other lobopods show features of primitive arthropods (Dzik 1993; Chen 1994). The discovery of the lobopod Opabinia with its lobopod limbs provides evidence of a lobopod to arthropod transition (Budd 1996), which was further bolstered by the discovery of a lobopod with gills (Budd 1993).
There are many more examples of pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fauna and subsequent evolutionary links.
I have all the citations above if you want them.
I will give you sixty million years on the Cambrian for now but I reserve the right to argue for a much less geologic time period, perhaps as low as five million.
First let's see if there is anything concrete we can agree on. Would agree on the somewhat rarity of mutations? Perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule?
First let's see if there is anything concrete we can agree on. Would agree on the somewhat rarity of mutations? Perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule?
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
(n the other hand - if creation is being stretched it would appear to be evolving......it could just be creation in motion - just our perspective. I think our view of God works this way - we see God as three, but He is one - i think it is due to our perspective and inability to classify Him. Could be the same idea with creation
On the contrary Aspen, I see God as one, and not three or four or as many theophanies as one can locate in scripture.
On the contrary Aspen, I see God as one, and not three or four or as many theophanies as one can locate in scripture.
On the contrary Aspen, I see God as one, and not three or four or as many theophanies as one can locate in scripture.
If you're going to overturn the geologic time scale, you'd better bring something very significant to the table.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
Nope. Mutations are common and occur with every replication event. For example, the mutation rate in humans is 100-200 new mutations per reproductive event.
And are you going to pass on what I wrote earlier about fossil specimens in the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian? I mean, you asked for it, so surely you aren't just going to ignore it, are you?
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
well, i see your post as two and yet it is one post :)
Not your point? yeah, your opinion about God has nothing to do with my point either.
Not your point? yeah, your opinion about God has nothing to do with my point either.
I will answer or admit no answer on anything. It just may take a little time as I am usually working.
Well, that's how these "conversations" (I hesitate to call them that) usually go.
The creationist makes a claim (no transitional fossils), presents a challenge (SHOW ME new species evolving), and/or demands some information on a subject (write up something on the Cambrian).
When those claims are shown to be wrong, the demands are met, and the write up is given, the creationist ignores it all and moves on to a different claim, demands something else, and/or ignores the information provided. Throw in some vague accusations of "bias" and shouts of "assumptions", and you have yourself a standard creationist "response".
The fact that that is almost always how it happens is a very good indication to me of how intellectually empty creationism is. If there was a legitimate, substantive, and logical basis for it, its advocates would rarely have to resort to such things.
The creationist makes a claim (no transitional fossils), presents a challenge (SHOW ME new species evolving), and/or demands some information on a subject (write up something on the Cambrian).
When those claims are shown to be wrong, the demands are met, and the write up is given, the creationist ignores it all and moves on to a different claim, demands something else, and/or ignores the information provided. Throw in some vague accusations of "bias" and shouts of "assumptions", and you have yourself a standard creationist "response".
The fact that that is almost always how it happens is a very good indication to me of how intellectually empty creationism is. If there was a legitimate, substantive, and logical basis for it, its advocates would rarely have to resort to such things.
