15 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonok, you win, i give up!
“...we are talking of the feather , the feather! and you are havering on about embryos! ….”
you were talking about the feather and I have already answered your question on the feather -the answer is “evolution” i.e. it evolved.
You also said there is no evidence for evolution and I debunked that with a website that clearly stated the evidence whi ...[text shortened]... process in general works then you will just have to look it up for yourself -try googling it.
15 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you just have a stock reply to these questions? It seems you do, because your answer does not logically follow from what i posted. In fact, i wonder if you even read my post. Two points -
it remains a matter of the interpretation of data and the assertion of an opinion. You have provided nothing to the contrary that there was an explosion of life, not a gradual one as has been erroneously proffered by the Darwinists! its a groaning heap of possibly, could be's and maybe so's! we are interested in science not conjecture and postulation!
1. Do you not think it's slightly disingenuous for someone writing an article in 1985 to ask the question - Today, has the situation changed?, and then quote something from 1959? Twenty five years previous?!
2. How can an article written in 1985 interpret data that wasn't known then?
we are interested in science not conjecture and postulation!
LOL!!!!!!! No your not, your only interested in propping up your dogmatic religious beliefs, those that are set by the Governing Body. They tell you what to think, you 'bleet' and blindly follow.
As for evidence for precambrian life, are you for real???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_life#Precambrian_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doushantuo_formation
http://www.csun.edu/~dgray/Evol322/Chapter17.pdf
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Precambrian-Fossils.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/6947.full
I could go on, but that should suffice for now.
15 May 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobthe reply was made after examining your text, shall i point out the could be's, what if's,
Do you just have a stock reply to these questions? It seems you do, because your answer does not logically follow from what i posted. In fact, i wonder if you even read my post. Two points -
1. Do you not think it's slightly disingenuous for someone writing an article in 1985 to ask the question - Today, has the situation changed?, and then qu tp://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/6947.full
I could go on, but that should suffice for now.
and it might have been's in context? no? well then, it remains under the circumstances
pure conjecture and to prove its a matter of intepretation i can find zillions of sites
that testify to the fact that there was an explosion of life,
Explosion of Invertebrate Life
During the Cambrian Period there was an explosion of life forms. Most of these were
in the water. Many animals with no backbones lived in the shallow seas. These
animals were invertebrates.
http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/cambrian_period.html
The theory of the Cambrian Explosion holds that, beginning some 545 million years
ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period
of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled
organisms. Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal
groups we know today
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm
Its not termed the Cambrian explosion for nothing you know!
16 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFrom the same website -
the reply was made after examining your text, shall i point out the could be's, what if's,
and it might have been's in context? no? well then, it remains under the circumstances
pure conjecture and to prove its a matter of intepretation i can find zillions of sites
that testify to the fact that there was an explosion of life,
Explosion of ...[text shortened]... obiology/CambrianExplosion.htm
Its not termed the Cambrian explosion for nothing you know!
The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help, as these transitional forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm
I'll remind you of the text in your article -
Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life,.....
Remember this text is from 1959, even though the article was written in 1985 (a point i've brought up twice which you have ignored both times), it is incorrect and outdated. I'm not disputing that something significant happened in the Cambrian period, but the fact is life has been found before the Cambrian period and as more life is found what was was once thought of as an 'explosion' significantly lessens.
16 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobAs i stated i am uninterested in discussing the critiques of the article which are merely side issues, the fact of the matter remains is that the fossil record is more in accordance with creation than of the evolutionary hypothesis, for it demonstrates not simple life forms gradually changing into complex ones but complex life forms suddenly appearing and multiplying after their kinds, as per the ancient text.
From the same website -
[quote]The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help, as these transitional forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian more life is found what was was once thought of as an 'explosion' significantly lessens.
16 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a complete strawman argument. We're discussing the article you put forward, i told you it was outdated garbage to which you replied -
As i stated i am uninterested in discussing the critiques of the article which are merely side issues, the fact of the matter remains is that the fossil record is more in accordance with creation than of the evolutionary hypothesis, for it demonstrates not simple life forms gradually changing into complex ones but complex life forms suddenly appearing and multiplying after their kinds, as per the ancient text.
Then perhaps you would like to address the actual points, Behe is quite correct, getting Darwinists to address the actual data is quite difficult.
I address the points with scientific data and then you tell me -
As i stated i am uninterested in discussing the critiques of the article which are merely side issues,........
What am i supposed to do?! I can't tell you why the article is wrong because i get the stock 'conjecture, postulation, assertion of an opinion' response. I show you the data from scientific websites and you tell me you're 'uninterested in discussing them'. It's clever what you're doing, i'll give you that. It's that filter you have in place working again, it stops any information which conflicts with your worldview getting into your brain.
Two questions for you -
1. For the third time, do you not think passing off a quote from 1959 as 'todays' view when the article was written in 1985 was disingenuous?
2. Do you accept evidence for Precambrian life has been found?
Yes or no's will suffice Robert.
16 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobmy dear friend you know i reject anything that is not creationism, why you should need
This is a complete strawman argument. We're discussing the article you put forward, i told you it was outdated garbage to which you replied -
Then perhaps you would like to address the actual points, Behe is quite correct, getting Darwinists to address the actual data is quite difficult.
I address the points with scientific data and evidence for Precambrian life has been found?
Yes or no's will suffice Robert.
to ask, i dont know. On the watchtower article itself i have no comment to make other
than it was beautifully crafted and I have never denied that there was pre-Cambrian
life, 🙂
16 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiemy dear friend you know i reject anything that is not creationism, why you should need to ask, i dont know.
my dear friend you know i reject anything that is not creationism, why you should need
to ask, i dont know. On the watchtower article itself i have no comment to make other
than it was beautifully crafted and I have never denied that there was pre-Cambrian
life, 🙂
That's not what i asked though? I have been discussing the article you posted in this thread, specifically it's view on Precambrian life and it's rather deceitful attempt at passing off scientific understanding 25 years previous as 'todays'. Which i notice, you failed to directly address for the fourth time.
So you accept there was Precambrian life!! So you agree with me that this section of the article is incorrect -
“Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.
16 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo i do not agree, 'almost barren', is a relative statement, relative to the profusion of
[b]my dear friend you know i reject anything that is not creationism, why you should need to ask, i dont know.
That's not what i asked though? I have been discussing the article you posted in this thread, specifically it's view on Precambrian life and it's rather deceitful attempt at passing off scientific understanding 25 years previous as 'today ,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.[/quote][/b]
life that ensued in the Cambrian period, making the statement most accurate.
16 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkayes i know, we are inundated with ultra materialists these days, sigh, but we are a
I have a feeling that these days all discussions in Spirituality end up as discussions about evolution.
hospitable bunch and welcome an opportunity to test the merits of their beliefs.