Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Pink Floyd Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer angrybirds angrybirds angrybirds  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Science forum

If the Cambrian "Explosion" is evidence of creation, what would be evidence of evolution?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 158 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 6, 2012 4:22:38 PM PDT
We see the claim over and over "All the major phyla appear at once", so that shows creation.

Just wondering what the creationists would predict that the fossil record would show if evolution was true.

Would see first prokaryotes, then unicellular eukaryotes, then sponges, then jellyfish, then "worms"?

Whoops, we *do* see that.

OK, so what then? What order would we expect to see the bilaterian phyla? Would molluscs and arthropods have to appear before vertebrates? What about plants --- shouldn't they be *before* the animals?

Lots of opportunities here, but I'll see what this post brings in.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 6:24:54 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
I guess god appearing and proclaiming evolution is true is the only acceptable evidence for creationists.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 6:44:36 PM PDT
noman says:
RE: "Physics Geek says:
I guess god appearing and proclaiming evolution is true is the only acceptable evidence for creationists. "

**No, that would be the anti-christ. the only "acceptable evidence" would fit their world view. which, realistically, holds for most people. recall that Einstein and many other physicists did not accept quantum uncertainty. I just keep wondering what my blind spots are. ;~_~

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 7:29:26 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
The literalists could claim that Genesis is correct about the Moon being older than the stars we see at night. This seems unintuitive to us even today.

Posted on Apr 6, 2012 8:28:37 PM PDT
I was prompted to write this by someone on a recent thread commenting on Doug Irwin's paper about ecosystem modeling and the Cambrian radiation (apologies, a search failed to find the original, please identify yourself!)

But here's an issue. I can understand why and OEC could target the Cambrian "explosion". OK, so god creates the Bilataria (Boom) and then it all proceeds from there.

But why would a YEC champion this notion? Nothing in the Cambrian remotely resembles anything in today's world. How could you explain the preservation of this event in terms of the flood??

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 8:32:30 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 8:34:35 PM PDT
In reply to your post on Apr 6, 2012 8:32:30 PM PDT
whomper says:
reply to Christine M. Janis's post:

"the only proof would be an independent experiment with the same results
good luck doing that in you lab"

Give me 3 billion years and I'll get back to you.

Meanwhile, back in the real world of people who actually understand science -----

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 9:09:41 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Apr 6, 2012 11:38:15 PM PDT
Whiplash says:
Even by internet troll standards, that was pretty lame.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 11:45:04 PM PDT
Whiplash says:
"But why would a YEC champion this notion? Nothing in the Cambrian remotely resembles anything in today's world. How could you explain the preservation of this event in terms of the flood?? "

Basically, creationists of all stripes will champion anything that they think disproves evolution (even though the only thing they ever really succeed at doing is demonstrating that they don't understand it) because they pretty much universally seem to believe that that's all they need to do. They assume that if they could disprove evolution then whatever they believe in is automatically true by default, whether it's Genesis, ancient aliens, or Kevin Bacon.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 6:10:51 AM PDT
Is Kevin Bacon a descendant of Frances Bacon?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 6:13:47 AM PDT
In reply to your post on Apr 6, 2012 9:09:41 PM PDT
whomper says:
reply to Christine M. Janis's post:

"are you going to follow me around and insult every post"

I thought that's what you were doing to me. But I'll probably spend my time in future on people with some real knowledge of the subject.

"but if it helps you overcome your tiny ego then keep it up "

Maybe you and MFEH can get together and decide whether my ego is actually tiny, or overwhelmingly huge. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 9:16:28 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Maybe you and MFEH can get together and decide whether my ego is actually tiny, or overwhelmingly huge. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between "

I was going to insert a comment here regarding whomper and Hewie and things that are perceived to be tiny (or huge) when compared to themselves, but I decided not to because it was just waaaayyy too easy.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 10:33:54 AM PDT
Deckard says:
whomper said:
"are you going to follow me around and insult every post"

She had the opening post - by definition, you followed her here.

Are you really this stoopid?

Posted on Apr 7, 2012 11:59:21 AM PDT
Whiplash says:
All the evidence points to yes.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 12:10:58 PM PDT
Tero says:
Well it was such a short time period after the flood, all them layers got dumped over a few weeks. There can't be any order in them layers, can there?

Posted on Apr 7, 2012 12:40:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 7, 2012 12:53:42 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
I think the of creationist logic is that if fossils imply evolution and evolution imply not creationism, then if fossils are false, evolution is false.

Or more formally:

In other words if the fossil record is A, evolution is B and creationism is C
[A => B ] and [B => ~C ] (true)

For creationism to be correct they would need to prove the following

[A => C] and [C => ~B] (false, as A does not imply C)

Since C => ~B and B => ~C not in contention, they focus on the first implication.

Of course if they fail to use the logic properly. It is not true that B => A.They are also attempting to use A => ~B => C There is no basis for implication. I think they missed any formal logic.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 12:58:26 PM PDT
Re werranth413, 4-6 7:29 PM: "This seems unintuitive to us even today." It isn't just unintuitive -- it is simply wrong. We know perfectly well that there are stars that are older than the moon.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 1:02:07 PM PDT
Re Deckard, 4-7 10:33 AM: As Purgatorius already observed, the answer is YES.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 1:16:14 PM PDT
Charlie T. says:
werranth413 says:
The literalists could claim that Genesis is correct about the Moon being older than the stars we see at night. This seems unintuitive to us even today.

Huh? The stars are older than the Moon.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 2:01:41 PM PDT
Whiplash says:
I think what werranth's somewhat confusingly worded post means (based on other posts that I've read by werranth) is that bible literalists could claim is that the moon is older than the stars despite the rest of us regarding it as nonsensical even without all the evidence showing that there are stars which are much older than the moon.

If that is a correct interpretation, I would interject that intuition and common sense are actually quite poor methods for determining what is or isn't true. After all, common sense suggests that a 12 pound bowling ball should fall much more quickly than a 12 ounce beach ball in a vacuum and that photons can't behave as both particles and waves, but scientific experimentation has demonstrated the opposite for both.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 2:35:36 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
no, not Francis Bacon either

but he is cute

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 2:37:13 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
the stars we see, Robert.

Very very few are even a tenth as old as the Moon.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 2:41:42 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
nope, can you name any? There are a few. Arcturus is a little older. Actually, Arcturus probably didn't form in our galaxy, surprisingly enough.

The Moon is very old, and our system moves much faster than the Local Standard of Rest (other nearby stars) because it's so much older.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 2:44:52 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
heh, well maybe what I've been taught is wrong. I enjoy your posts, Purgatorius, you remind me of RAS.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  38
Total posts:  158
Initial post:  Apr 6, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions