Atheism

[Djevv]

This is an argument against gradualism! It is true that not every transitional form is documented in the fossil record, yet the connection between species is clear within the fossil record. If gradualism were the only driving force of evolution you would expect to see more transitional forms (as gradualism is a slow, steady process). In fact you often see bursts of speciation which can easily be explained by punctuated equilibrium. This does not mean that both processes aren't at work. I still don't understand how the fossil record fits with a single moment of creation?!? I am still waiting for you to point out the "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian".

Do you know much about the Cambrian explosion? Do you know what types of organisms existed during the Cambrian? How does this support your creation theory? If macroevolution does not occur (your contention) then how did we go from a diverse group of organisms in the Cambrian (now largely extinct, with the exception of the lineages that evolved into modern life) to the diversity of life, quite distinct from that during the Cambrian? As for the paucity of pre-Cambrian fossils, there are plenty of plausible explanations, including the massive time passed and the scarcity of pre-cambrian rocks suitable for fossilisation processes and the explosion of body plans during the Cambrian that included the evolution of chitin skeletons that are far more likely to be fossilised then the soft bodies that were the norm before this time. If the Burgess Shale had not been discovered you would be asking where the Cambrian fossils are! Why not point out the inconsistencies in the evidence supporting evolution, rather then pointing out the (expected) gaps in our incomplete fossil record.

Heres a quote from a site on the Cambrian explosion which explains it pretty well.

"This explosion is perhaps the most striking single event documented by the fossil record. In the strict sense, the explosion refers to a geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living [animal] phyla that had durable (easily fossilizable) skeletons. One of those two phyla is the Porifera (sponges), which was present in the fossil record at an earlier time. The other is the Bryozoa, a phylum that contains some soft-bodied groups and may well have been present but not yet skeletonized. A number of enigmatic organisms of obscure relationships also appear during the explosion, enriching the early Cambrian fauna. Precision dating indicates that the explosion began at 530 Ma (million years ago) and ended before 520 Ma" (Bowring et al. 1993 ???).

You can argue that there were diverse soft bodied creatures prior to this but in the absence of much evidence, who knows?

 

[evo]

I don't really understand your argument,Djevv.

Are you saying evolution theory is suspect becaue theres not much evidence of animals prior to the Cambrian explosion?

If so i presume you accept that animals are over 500m years old,seeing as you're using that as evidence.

So this is an argument that theBible is correct, Noahs Ark story is true and the earth is young,how?

 

[jayfox]

Can you demonstrate where I was 'big talking myself' or 'downplaying any opinions that don't reflect my own'? I was merely disagreeing with your POV and providing the rationale for my disagreement. I asked you to specifically point out where I was bullying. If that is the limit of your retort then why are we bothering to discuss these matters?

You're right. Let's just forget it. It is clear that you can't see what I'm talking about so I'll drop it. After all it is a passionate subject.

Can I unequivocally prove the bible is not true, no, but I can't unequivocally prove that the koran, the talmud, beowulf, the odyssey, or any historic fiction for that matter is false with 100% certainty, and I would argue that you couldn't either. Does that mean I subscribe to a belief in them...of course not and nor do I believe in the bible for the same reason.

Do you acknowledge any of the archaeological evidence that confirms places, people or events contained within the Bible? And if those are accurate and true, why is the rest a fairytale?

'Incredibly pro-scientific hat'? What is the problem with science? It is just a rational approach for understanding the world around us that attempts to control for the limitations of human perception. At the same time it makes a concerted effort to be self-critical to correct any errors that will undoubtedly be accepted from time to time. Do I believe that evolution has occured...yes, with 100% certainty, given the many lines of evidence that we have available to us. Are there questions as to how evolution occurs and the relative importance of these natural forces...yes...and that is where scientific enquiry will continue to play a role.

Yes you are incredibly pro-science just as I am incredibly pro-Bible or pro-God if you like. I have no problem with science, except where I believe it misleads society. In general, I think that man's discovery through science is amazing and has been wonderful for our world. Remember, my wife and father-in-law are both scientists so I clearly have no problem with science or scientists! ;D My father-in-law is also the Head of Microbiology at a major hospital here. Both are Christians and creationists.

You said "Are there questions as to how evolution occurs and the relative importance of these natural forces...yes". I'll ask you again, specifically what are these grey areas?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Heres a quote from a site on the Cambrian explosion which explains it pretty well.

"This explosion is perhaps the most striking single event documented by the fossil record. In the strict sense, the explosion refers to a geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living [animal] phyla that had durable (easily fossilizable) skeletons. One of those two phyla is the Porifera (sponges), which was present in the fossil record at an earlier time. The other is the Bryozoa, a phylum that contains some soft-bodied groups and may well have been present but not yet skeletonized. A number of enigmatic organisms of obscure relationships also appear during the explosion, enriching the early Cambrian fauna. Precision dating indicates that the explosion began at 530 Ma (million years ago) and ended before 520 Ma" (Bowring et al. 1993 ???).

You can argue that there were diverse soft bodied creatures prior to this but in the absence of much evidence, who knows?

How does this fit into your creationist model? We have a number of species that first appear in the Cambrian due to an 'explosion' of body plans. A few of these species are the precursors of modern species (but not modern species!). Most of the species appearing in the Cambrian led to extinct lineages.

We do know that, even now, most organisms have body types that are not amenable to fossilisation. Before the evolution of endo- or exo-skeletons (which tend to fossilise far better and far more often than 'soft' body types) would you expect to see many fossils? Also given the time that has passed and the changes to the Earth's landmasses it is amazing that we have as much information about this time as we do.

As you mention in your post a number of phyla first appeared around the time of the Cambrian explosion. If you study the genetics of development you will see that we share similar genes for embryonic development with many of these phyla. The genes that control the development of body plans are shared across an amazingly wide range of organisms, suggesting an early development (ie. pre-Cambrian) that may have led to the diversification of body plans evident during the Cambrian (the genetic ground work was in place....so to speak). This is not guess work..this is based on the analysis of these genes in extant species that are known to have diversified prior (or during) the Cambrian. The genes were present, we know the generic control they have over development of body plans, it is not such a great leap to see how the evolution of these genes (Hox genes) could lead to the 'explosion' observed during the Cambrian.

Again, if you don't believe in macro-evolution, I don't see how the Cambrian explosion can aid your case for a single creation-event for all 'types' of living organisms.

 

[evo]

My father-in-law is also the Head of Microbiology at a major hospital here. Both are Christians and creationists.

The cognative dissonance going on in that mans head must be mind boggling--pardon the pun.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You're right. Let's just forget it. It is clear that you can't see what I'm talking about so I'll drop it. After all it is a passionate subject.

Fair enough. I am passionate about knowledge and an honest discourse in these matters. When I think people are being intellectually dishonest, I will call them on it, that is all. It is easy enough to defend one's position if it is well thought out. Perhaps you might even learn something new...that is what I have enjoyed about the many discussions on this thread.

Do you acknowledge any of the archaeological evidence that confirms places, people or events contained within the Bible? And if those are accurate and true, why is the rest a fairytale?

It doesn't surprise me that there are archaeological significant passages in a book as old as the Bible. Does that confirm any of the other stories contained therein? No. Not without corroborating evidence. The archaeologically significant passages are only accepted because of the presence of corroborating evidence.

Yes you are incredibly pro-science just as I am incredibly pro-Bible or pro-God if you like. I have no problem with science, except where I believe it misleads society. In general, I think that man's discovery through science is amazing and has been wonderful for our world. Remember, my wife and father-in-law are both scientists so I clearly have no problem with science or scientists! ;D My father-in-law is also the Head of Microbiology at a major hospital here. Both are Christians and creationists.

Please give me an example where science "misleads society". Remember that science is just a way of asking questions of the world around us. What is wrong with that? It seems that you have no problem with science as long as what we discover with it doesn't encroach on your supernatural beliefs....can you not see the danger in this position? Your father-in-law who is the head of microbiology must subscribe to evolution (whether he believes that God got the ball rolling is another question altogether). Microbiologists are in one of the best positions to observe evolution in action due to the rapid generation times of many microbes.

You said "Are there questions as to how evolution occurs and the relative importance of these natural forces...yes". I'll ask you again, specifically what are these grey areas?

There are many areas that are under investigation and hotly debated in the field including the relative roles of gradualism (Darwin's proposal) and punctuated equilibrium that Djevv and I have been discussing, the relative roles of selection vs. drift in determining the frequency of genes in populations (does everything evolved have a purpose that was selected for?), the role of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) in determining the diversity of morphology observed in the natural world etc etc.

There is no debate as to whether evolution has occurred or not. The evidence on that matter is unequivocal (and has been so for a long time). If you doubt this, tell me something that calls evolutionary theory into question.

Stephen Jay Gould was an important figure in shaping modern evolutionary theory and wrote a short essay that may be enlightening to individuals who want to know the view of evolution from the perspective of science:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

I strongly recommend that you read it. If nothing else, at least you will know what the 'pro-science' crowd thinks.

 

[evo]

Goulds idea of NOMA was pretty dissapointing.Good scientist,poor philosopher.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Goulds idea of NOMA was pretty dissapointing.Good scientist,poor philosopher.

Agreed. His contribution to modern evolutionary theory is unquestionable though.

 

[evo]

It's a good article that Gould one.

I think i may palagarise at some stage for my philosophy degree. ;D

This is a good paragraph.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

 

[Djevv]

I don't really understand your argument,Djevv.

Are you saying evolution theory is suspect becaue theres not much evidence of animals prior to the Cambrian explosion?

If so i presume you accept that animals are over 500m years old,seeing as you're using that as evidence.

So this is an argument that theBible is correct, Noahs Ark story is true and the earth is young,how?

This is what I am getting at in a nutshell:

Since numerous forms (all the major ones bar two) are with us right from the very beginning, without apparent (fossilised) precursors, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that they and all the other species from the Cambrian onwards were in fact buried in a series of cataclysms due to the flood? This explains the gaps and lack of precursors. This means that the fossil record is simply a record of the numerous species living together in the pre-flood world.

It can be argued that many geological formations are explicable only by catastrophic formation. If Mt St Helens layed down over 7m of sediments, some fine lamellae, in less than a day, imagine what a worldwide catastrophe like a flood might do. (BTW I tried to spell out my model a few pages ago).

My use of the uniformatarian timescale is for convenience only.

 

[evo]

Since numerous forms (all the major ones bar two) are with us right from the very beginning, without apparent (fossilised) precursors, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that they and all the other species from the Cambrian onwards were in fact buried in a series of cataclysms due to the flood?

No

This explains the gaps and lack of precursors. This means that the fossil record is simply a record of the numerous species living together in the pre-flood world.

It can be argued that many geological formations are explicable only by catastrophic formation. If Mt St Helens layed down over 7m of sediments, some fine lamellae, in less than a day, imagine what a worldwide catastrophe like a flood might do. (BTW I tried to spell out my model a few pages ago).

A ferkin' worldwide flood is physically impossible,where did all this extra water come from?---outerspace.Have you taken leave of your senses?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

This is what I am getting at in a nutshell:

Since numerous forms (all the major ones bar two) are with us right from the very beginning, without apparent (fossilised) precursors, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that they and all the other species from the Cambrian onwards were in fact buried in a series of cataclysms due to the flood? This explains the gaps and lack of precursors. This means that the fossil record is simply a record of the numerous species living together in the pre-flood world.

It can be argued that many geological formations are explicable only by catastrophic formation. If Mt St Helens layed down over 7m of sediments, some fine lamellae, in less than a day, imagine what a worldwide catastrophe like a flood might do. (BTW I tried to spell out my model a few pages ago).

My use of the uniformatarian timescale is for convenience only.

Why are fossils found in distinct strata that correspond to chronological periods? If it was single cataclysmic event there would be mixing of species from different time periods.

BTW the Cambrian is not 'right from the very beginning'...not even close.

What is your evidence against a uniformitarian timescale?

All geological evidence aside....I want to know where all of that water came from (and went to?)! EDIT: Evo beat me to it.

 

[Djevv]

No

Why?

A ferkin' worldwide flood is physically impossible,where did all this extra water come from?---outerspace.Have you taken leave of your senses?

If the world was as flat as a cue ball, the water from the ocean would cover it's surface by 2km. Perhaps things were different in the pre-diluvian world? There are some models that attempt to explain this sort of thing.

 

[evo]

Why?


If the world was as flat as a cue ball, the water from the ocean would cover it's surface by 2km. Perhaps things were different in the pre-diluvian world? There are some models that attempt to explain this sort of thing.

It's bloody ridiculous dude.

The Noahs Ark story is approximately 4 or 5thousand years old.

The Himilayas,as an example are 70 million years old and they are some of the youngest mountain ranges.

 

[jayfox]

The cognative dissonance going on in that mans head must be mind boggling--pardon the pun.

Nope. He is an amazing scientist and a very strong committed Christian with no concerns of conflict. I can profess a personal knowledge of his faith and he clearly wouldn't be in the position that he is unless he was a very good scientist either so your assertation is blatantly wrong.

 

[jayfox]

No
A ferkin' worldwide flood is physically impossible,where did all this extra water come from?---outerspace.Have you taken leave of your senses?

It is difficult to explain without supernatural help but we have a supernatural God. It rained for 40 days and nights and much of that water could have been drawn from the oceans and deposited on dry land. The Bible also speaks of "the fountains of the great deep" being opened, suggesting underground water was released. Here is a link that tries to explain what may have happened -

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Nope. He is an amazing scientist and a very strong committed Christian with no concerns of conflict. I can profess a personal knowledge of his faith and he clearly wouldn't be in the position that he is unless he was a very good scientist either so your assertation is blatantly wrong.

There has to be some level of cognitive dissonance if someone is a very good scientist and very strong committed Christian. There are areas where the two POVs clash and must be compartmentalised if one is to hold both beliefs simultaneously.

It is not a sleight on your father-in-law, just an observation.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It is difficult to explain without supernatural help but we have a supernatural God. It rained for 40 days and nights and much of that water could have been drawn from the oceans and deposited on dry land. The Bible also speaks of "the fountains of the great deep" being opened, suggesting underground water was released. Here is a link that tries to explain what may have happened -

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

The supernatural god for a supernatural phenomenon explanation doesn't really cut it. You may as well wheel that one out for every phenomenon!

If the water in the ocean fell on the land....it would run back to the ocean, not flood the entire earth!

The 'hydroplate' explanation of the flood would have to get around a few problems:

* that the rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float, so that the water would have been forced to the surface long before the Genesis flood.
* that even two miles deep (far above the hypothesised depth), the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), resulting in a superheated reservoir of water and temperatures that would not have been survivable.
* that the waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures through which they were escaping, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

(source: Wikipedia)

 

[Djevv]

It's bloody ridiculous dude.

The Noahs Ark story is approximately 4 or 5thousand years old.

The Himilayas,as an example are 70 million years old and they are some of the youngest mountain ranges.

People actually saw Noahs flood. Nobody saw the 70myr mountain ranges being formed. Nobody measured the time from then to now. Really, the whole thing rests on unproven assumptions -that things have always worked the way they do now. I agree that flood models are not advanced as the evolutionary ones, but 100 years ago evolutionary theory was a totally different proposition to what it is now. I believe with time and money spent on them, catastrophic models can become far more convincing. Remember, Creationism, in it's modern form, is only 30 years old and has advanced so dramatically in that time, that it has evolutionary scientists looking nervously over their shoulders, trying (of all things) to prove their points in courts of Law!!

 

[jayfox]

There has to be some level of cognitive dissonance if someone is a very good scientist and very strong committed Christian. There are areas where the two POVs clash and must be compartmentalised if one is to hold both beliefs simultaneously.

It is not a sleight on your father-in-law, just an observation.

I disagree and so does he.