Evolution vs Creation

[EZM]

Originally Posted by raab

I dont really think anyone disagrees about the Cambrian Explosion itself. I think people disagree on how it happened or how long it took. Mainly Evolutionists who are trying to make it fit their Theory...

Are you suggesting there is a limit to the frequency and dispersal of how species evolve or at what rate?

Have a look at the common dog. Man domesticated the wolf (15,000 years ago) yet he didn't really begin to selectively breed until only a few thousand years ago.

Do you realise that within a span of a few hundred years, a dog can be completely unrecognisable from it's ancestor.

There's an example that shows how quickly evolution can occur and how diverse the end result might look like.

The example is a perfect illustration underpinning the potential of adaptation, selective breeding and evolution.

Now you are going to say that rapid change occurred because of the intervention of man - and you are right - but the example is there to illustrate how quickly and radically evolution can occur.

And, in extreme environmental changes, adaptations like these can occur very very quickly (over a few hundred or a thousand years) naturally.

[alta270]

While we are on the topic of science, one of the greatest communicator of astrophyics, Neil deGrasse Tyson, discusses science in this article:

https://qz.com/998750/how-to-explain...egrasse-tyson/

It's a good read, no matter what side of the fence you are on.

[raab]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

Ok, I don't agree and can cite many researchers who either dispute it or who dispute the actual magnitude of it. ( a few right here in AB!)
However, let's assume it did happen as you said you know it happened and you likely have a great deal of knowledge about this subject. I'm still perplexed as to why its an issue for the theories of evolution? Please expand on this idea?

Why was the evolutionary process 5 times faster then today in the cambrain period? If the Theory of Evolution is supposed to pass the scientific method we should see repeatable evolutionary intervals, which we dont.

Also regarding your previous statement about fossilization and soft bodies not fossilizing. Is it not then therefore possible that other soft body animals may not have fossilized or we may not have found them yet dating back several millions of years?

Also how do you explain the extinction of the dinosaurs, and why did mammals and birds survive whatever killed them off?

[raab]

Originally Posted by EZM

Are you suggesting there is a limit to the frequency and dispersal of how species evolve or at what rate?

Have a look at the common dog. Man domesticated the wolf (15,000 years ago) yet he didn't really begin to selectively breed until only a few thousand years ago.

Do you realise that within a span of a few hundred years, a dog can be completely unrecognisable from it's ancestor.

There's an example that shows how quickly evolution can occur and how diverse the end result might look like.

The example is a perfect illustration underpinning the potential of adaptation, selective breeding and evolution.

Now you are going to say that rapid change occurred because of the intervention of man - and you are right - but the example is there to illustrate how quickly and radically evolution can occur.

And, in extreme environmental changes, adaptations like these can occur very very quickly (over a few hundred or a thousand years) naturally.

Yes, but in the end its still a dog. I'm talking about speciation.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by EZM

Are you suggesting there is a limit to the frequency and dispersal of how species evolve or at what rate?

Have a look at the common dog. Man domesticated the wolf (15,000 years ago) yet he didn't really begin to selectively breed until only a few thousand years ago.

Do you realise that within a span of a few hundred years, a dog can be completely unrecognisable from it's ancestor.

There's an example that shows how quickly evolution can occur and how diverse the end result might look like.

The example is a perfect illustration underpinning the potential of adaptation, selective breeding and evolution.

Now you are going to say that rapid change occurred because of the intervention of man - and you are right - but the example is there to illustrate how quickly and radically evolution can occur.

And, in extreme environmental changes, adaptations like these can occur very very quickly (over a few hundred or a thousand years) naturally.

Selective breeding of Russian fox selected for genetics very similar to a domestic dog.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by raab

Yes, but in the end its still a dog. I'm talking about speciation.

If it can't naturally reproduce with the original then it is a new species.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by raab

Also how do you explain the extinction of the dinosaurs, and why did mammals and birds survive whatever killed them off?

I'd strongly suggest you compare the timeline of when mammals came to be and compare that to when dinosaurs walked the earth.

There is very little overlap there.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by EZM

I'd strongly suggest you compare the timeline of when mammals came to be and compare that to when dinosaurs walked the earth.

Are you talking about the timeline that evolutionists can never agree on? The timeline that relies on inaccurate dating methods?

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by raab

Why was the evolutionary process 5 times faster then today in the cambrain period? If the Theory of Evolution is supposed to pass the scientific method we should see repeatable evolutionary intervals, which we dont.

I already answered that in a previous post:
Lets assume that there was a huge number of new phyla at this time as some propose. 20 million years is plenty of time for these new phyla to appear, especially with the Earth's ecosystems rapidly changing leading to more rapid evolution. (things like an increase in atmospheric oxygen, sea floors composition changing, recession of glaciers , etc)

I will add that evolution can happen very rapidly when conditions allow. Did you know that polar bears evolved from the same species as brown/grizzly bears only few hundred thousand years ago. ( a far cry from 20 million!)

Originally Posted by raab

Also regarding your previous statement about fossilization and soft bodies not fossilizing. Is it not then therefore possible that other soft body animals may not have fossilized or we may not have found them yet dating back several millions of years?

Correct. Not only possible but almost a certainty. Not only several millions of years, hundreds of millions of years.

Originally Posted by raab

Also how do you explain the extinction of the dinosaurs, and why did mammals and birds survive whatever killed them off.

Not sure what the mass and sudden extinction of dinosaurs has to do with your idea. ( I'm trying to keep up but you truly have a dizzying intellect) Bird and mammal species not only survived but were suddenly going through and explosion in new species as there were so many niches vacated by the dinosaurs. This would be easy to predict and easily verifiable by fossil records. The proliferation of mammals may have even hastened the dinosaurs demise as mammals are endotherms and can move when temperatures are cool. Ectotherms, like dinosaurs , would have trouble defending themselves and their eggs when temperatures were cool. (maybe a volcanic winter, or a large meteor strike causing same result)

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by raab

Why was the evolutionary process 5 times faster then today in the cambrain period? If the Theory of Evolution is supposed to pass the scientific method we should see repeatable evolutionary intervals, which we dont.

Also regarding your previous statement about fossilization and soft bodies not fossilizing. Is it not then therefore possible that other soft body animals may not have fossilized or we may not have found them yet dating back several millions of years?

Also how do you explain the extinction of the dinosaurs, and why did mammals and birds survive whatever killed them off.

These are questions that were being debated in evolutionary science circles some 40 years ago.

Punctuated equilibirum is the idea that evolutionary changes occur (relatively) rapidly and infrequently rather than gradually and steadily.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium


The creatceous extinction appears to largely be the result of an impact winter caused by a major meteorite impact. This made photosynthesis difficult and we see a decline in photosynthesizing organisms as well as dependant herbivores and large carnivores (who eat those herbivores) in the fossil record.

At the same time, organisms that relied on detritus (worms, some insects etc) or fed on detritus-eaters (small mammals etc) had a steady food supply through to the end of the impact winter.

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Are you talking about the timeline that evolutionists can never agree on? The timeline that relies on inaccurate dating methods?

Please, let us know about these inaccurate dating methods?

[raab]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

If it can't naturally reproduce with the original then it is a new species.

What? If I take two canines an make a new breed that's not a new species. A new species would be if I took a lizard and cat and made a cat-lizard. Doesn't happen.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Are you talking about the timeline that evolutionists can never agree on? The timeline that relies on inaccurate dating methods?

Oh yeah, right, because creationist's theory on timelines range anywhere from 6,000 to 6 billion years which is much more precise ......

I am actually shocked anyone would compare something so utterly obviously hypocritical and ridiculous. I am solid gold shocked.

It's like the fat kid pointing to a pin sized stain on someone's else's shirt while his khaki pants have a soccer ball sized poop stain bleeding through them.

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by raab

What? If I take two canines an make a new breed that's not a new species. A new species would be if I took a lizard and cat and made a cat-lizard. Doesn't happen.

I'm starting to realize how futile this is after reading this.


Would you agree that there are three species of bears in Canada? All sharing similar traits but three distinct species. Nothing to do with a cat-lizard.(and to point out comment is even less accurate , if you successfully crossed a cat with a lizard it would be a hybrid , not a new species!)

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by EZM

Oh yeah, right, because creationist's theory on timelines range anywhere from 6,000 to 6 billion years which is much more precise ......

I am actually shocked anyone would compare something so utterly obviously hypocritical and ridiculous. I am solid gold shocked.

It's like the fat kid pointing to a pin sized stain on someone's else's shirt while his khaki pants have a soccer ball sized poop stain bleeding through them.

You are insinuating I agree with all creationists. I believe in a young earth.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

Please, let us know about these inaccurate dating methods?

Ok, tell me one that is accurate?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by EZM

Oh yeah, right, because creationist's theory on timelines range anywhere from 6,000 to 6 billion years which is much more precise ......

Actually, it's now 6000 years back to what could be the big bang now

[raab]

Originally Posted by EZM

Oh yeah, right, because creationist's theory on timelines range anywhere from 6,000 to 6 billion years which is much more precise ......

I am actually shocked anyone would compare something so utterly obviously hypocritical and ridiculous. I am solid gold shocked.

It's like the fat kid pointing to a pin sized stain on someone's else's shirt while his khaki pants have a soccer ball sized poop stain bleeding through them.

Please note not all creationists are fixed to a 6000 year old time line, so I'm unsure why its still brought up. Now do you think something created a lot of the species on earth or that we all formed from one life form? That's what this debate should be on.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Ok, tell me one that is accurate?

You are really grasping, never expected that from you.

What do you know about half life of elements?



And I'm really curious. What is it you believe? You're all over the map.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by raab

Please note not all creationists are fixed to a 6000 year old time line,

How is that possible? Convenience? If you can't agree, why are creationists on here arguing?

[Unregistered user]

No mention of dinosaurs in the bible. it only goes as far back as a talking snake, hmmmm.

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Ok, tell me one that is accurate?

Accurate and precise in absolute terms or in chronological order?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

You are really grasping, never expected that from you.

What do you know about half life of elements?



And I'm really curious. What is it you believe? You're all over the map.

My question is then, do we know that elements always decay at the same "speed"? I believe too many assumptions are made when it comes to dating.

I understand the concept of the half life of elements. What I do not know is the condition of the earth when it was created.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

Accurate and precise in absolute terms or in chronological order?

Sure, however you wish to present them.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

No mention of dinosaurs in the bible. it only goes as far back as a talking snake, hmmmm.

That is incorrect, the Bible specifically mentions dinosaurs on more than one occasion.

[Norwest Alta]

Thank god for the guy that created beer which later evolved into a damn tasty refreshment on a hot day.

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Sure, however you wish to present them.

The easiest for you to understand would be the chronological order of fossils found in rock strata. Very accurate and always in correct order when strata are intact. (like at the Grand Canyon)

[raab]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

I'm starting to realize how futile this is after reading this.


Would you agree that there are three species of bears in Canada? All sharing similar traits but three distinct species. Nothing to do with a cat-lizard.

I would agree that they're all bears with different micro evolutionary changes. I guess when I say Macroevolution I should not be saying species, but organisms.

This is what I don't agree with:

"Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types."

So basically you take a dog and turn it into a fish.... Nothing like that has ever been seen or done that I know of.

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by Newview01

That is incorrect, the Bible specifically mentions dinosaurs on more than one occasion.

To be clear, I'm not trying to dispute any existence of God or argrue the origin of life, but please expand on this.

[raab]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

How is that possible? Convenience? If you can't agree, why are creationists on here arguing?

Because everyone has a different opinion. Let it be noted the bible does not say the earth was created 6000 years ago, but that man has added it up and came to that conclusion through the genealogy.