Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
To be fair, on the whole this thread has been a fantastic read, with a lot of good information. Just spoiled by some of the more militant theists and atheists mud slinging.
First of all, it is terribly sad that Jason2 is being labelled a troll purely because he holds different views to everyone else. That doesn't make him a troll. I know his manner sometimes isn't desirable, however, a lot of you guys need to realise that holding a differing opinion doesn't make someone a troll.
My point is that the Cambrian explosion showed the exact opposed of what evolution apparently claims! The Cambrian explosion shows NO evidence whatsoever for a common ancestor. It does show the 'sudden' appearance of the vast majority of animal types. This suggests that there is indeed a lot of new things, given that there was no evidence of a common ancestor.
The problem is that the huge amount of information needed in DNA to produce the creatures found in the explosion can't be explained apparently.
Can you list what exactly about evolution is undeniable fact?
The problem is that the Cambrian period is so short that all these complex new creatures can't be explained by evolution. Fossil finds indicate a top down approach. Darwinism expects the opposite.
So where did all the new information come from to control the building of proteins, cells, tissue etc? Evolution doesn't seem to offer any explanation.
Darwin himself conceded the fossil record was a huge threat to his theory. No discoveries since have reinforced his position it seems.
My point is that the Cambrian explosion showed the exact opposed of what evolution apparently claims! The Cambrian explosion shows NO evidence whatsoever for a common ancestor. It does show the 'sudden' appearance of the vast majority of animal types. This suggests that there is indeed a lot of new things, given that there was no evidence of a common ancestor.
The problem is that the huge amount of information needed in DNA to produce the creatures found in the explosion can't be explained apparently.
Can you list what exactly about evolution is undeniable fact?
The problem is that the Cambrian period is so short that all these complex new creatures can't be explained by evolution. Fossil finds indicate a top down approach. Darwinism expects the opposite.
So where did all the new information come from to control the building of proteins, cells, tissue etc? Evolution doesn't seem to offer any explanation.
Darwin himself conceded the fossil record was a huge threat to his theory. No discoveries since have reinforced his position it seems.
Thankyou mods! That was quick
So just because you disagree with a guy you try to get him banned? Great attitude.
Not forgetting the personal attack. I've been banned for less.
No, what makes him a troll is the fact that he continues to ignore a lot of the posts holding solid evidence and counter arguments, asking further questions, ignoring people and the insulting them when they call him out.
I'm beginning to doubt you also. All of your questions have been answered multiple times, with evidence to support the answers, and yet you keep coming back and arguing the same points even though they have been answered.
As I said, my little brother understood the answers first time, and he's 15. It's really, really not difficult to grasp the concepts provided to you. As you say, you are not an expert, so if you are honestly missing the point, then I would suggest going and reading up extensively on the subject. That's what I'm doing and I grasped all of the points first time!
He called me a sad little boy who needs to get a life. All that for asking to meet up for a civil debate on the subject.
I have been perfectly civil in this thread, merely just calling him out on points that he made, and then was massively hypocritical about!
So, I rather think that I have had the better attitude in this thread
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
See this is the issue, we already discussed this topic pages ago. we went through this and now like a loop we are back without you having taken notice of anything previously posted.
It isn't a debate we are having, you are asking questions, we provide you with answers, you disregard them and then ask the same question 3 pages later.
I've already said that data is infact contradictory to darwins slow and steady theory. There have been numerous events and occasions where evolutionary rates seem to have increased and others where they have decreased in terms of speed.
Darwin produced a theory based upon the physical evidence that he had available at the time. The whole point of science and hypothesising is to use the data that you have to extract observations and get a context from them to make a hypothesis. You then test this and if it works you have the basics to a theory.
What you seem to be saying is that because the information that Darwin had when he made HIS particular theory didn't show these speed up's and down's, that the theory is therefore null and void in total, instead of needing amending to fit the new information that has become available.
There are a great number of reasons why the rate of evolution can speed up or slow down, the question is, do you understand what they are?
If you seriously think all my questions have been answered then I'd suggest you read my posts again. I haven't seen any evidence for a common ancestor. The evidence of the Cambrian knocks the idea on its head. The problems with the top-down v bottom-up design hasn't been answered, how new functionality develops with no common ancestor hasn't been answered, where this information came from hasn't been answered, and I haven't found out much about the other questions on where the concept of sex came from either.
The general feeling around this thread is "believe us or get out". The example being a few posts back where it was stated something like "the scientific explanation for evolution is that is happened". Wonderful.
Edit: Lol - I see I'm a troll now too even though I haven't dished out any personal insults.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 113
It isn't because he has a different view, it's because he ignores the majority of replies to specific points if they aren't in his favour. That and resorts to petty name calling, though to be fair in that case he's not the only one.
A troll is someone who ignores evidence against their position in order to cause argument.
Check.
There has been PLENTY of answers to your questions. You just either don't understand the subject matter, or are just ignoring them to.
To be honest, if you say 'the world is flat' enough times, people are going to label you as a troll, I have no problem with flat earth believers, just don't try and overturn established knowledge without any proof/argument.
All Jason2 has to offer is white noise, and people who churn out white noise do so because they have nothing else to churn out, so they get labeled trolls/idiots/whatever.
Well, I'm a layman who reads books - not qualified in any way to make a judgement or know the answer, but i'd say something like this;
The Cambrian 'explosion' would most likley have come about due to rapid changes in the environment, which could include but not be limited to;
Atmospheric changes - increased oxygen, which would allow bigger more complex things to exist easier than before,
Chemical changes - The abundance of volcanic activity could well have altered the state of the oceans, making it easier for marine creatures to become more complex, maybe grow skeletons/Armour/etc
Mass extinction - big changes in the environment would trigger big changes in biology too, some would make it, others would adapt and survive - so many possibilities..
Things like this (which it took me less than 5 minutes to research) gives drastic weight to what we know about evolution now; and when applied to problems like the Cambrian period, offers a strong theory on his these things worked.
rofl
Well it's very difficult to explain for sure because it was 530 million years ago, but all the stuff above offers an insight, there's plenty of information to read about that offers good solid logical explanations, but nothing can be proven 100% because it was 530 million years ago.
Biological organisms change over time depending on their environment, it's well understood to the point where it's a fact, both in experiment, experience and nature.
Find me a good biologist, zoologist or geneticist who doesn't accept evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
No it doesn't. Many factors affect the speed of evolution. As has been explained many times over.
Again you're assuming there isn't a common ancestor when the evidence points to one.
I answered this earlier.
You don't have to insult anyone to be a troll.
Here's a relatively short explanation of the Cambrian period with possible explanations/theories as to why there appears to have been such an explosion in diversity. (even I could understand it..LOL) I don't follow the argument that the theory of evolution is wrong simply because one period behaves differently from the rest. During that period not only was the rate of diversity changing but also the environment. And environment is a huge driver in evolution.
http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion
http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion
That's not explaining anything, evolutionary scientists assume the eye evolved bit by bit by time and chance, there is no real scientific method of explanation, there is no working model for eye evolution, which bit of the human eye evolved first?
This has all been explained earlier in the thread.
Most mutations are not beneficial to the species, evolutionary scientists claim mutations are/is one of the underlying mechanism for evolution, so you should have plenty of evidence for this?, can you explain and show how beneficial these mutations are for one species to evolve into another species of a higher order?.