They concede that there actually was an Upper Jurasic period, but it occurred around 2348 BC (Note that it's one year, not a range!). Of course, the Cambrian was a few months earlier than that!
Posted on 09/15/2009 8:09:13 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The fossil record reveals a history of life characterized by the abrupt appearance of new species followed by no change and eventual extinction in most cases. Needless to say, abrupt appearances and no change is not exactly what evolution expected. Much of this was known in Darwin’s time and he figured that the fossil record was incomplete. Today such speculation doesn’t work anymore. The evidence reveals even more clearly this pattern of abrupt appearances followed by stasis.
--Snip--
As in Darwin's day, the fossil record does not match evolutionary expectations and evolutionists have been trying to solve the riddle. How can the empirical scientific data be explained by evolution? One new idea is to have the recently discovered microRNAs do the heavy lifting...
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
Ping!
Here’s the last line of the article:
“See? Just like it says in Genesis! The End”
What exactly is an “ID scientist”, anyway? Why does ID need “science” to proclaim that life is too complex to investigate further? Seems like you would just have to be a zealot.
The article cites the Cambrian period which occurred 490 to 543 million years ago.
How does this fit in with the supposed (unlikely) “young” 6,000 year-old earth theory?
Sounds like the “just-so” YEC crew just shot themselves in the foot.
60 millions from now when the scientists return to earth to try to figure out how a space faring civilization started, they’ll look at the fossil record and conclude that space aliens from a still older time colonized the planet because on one layer of rock there were no humans and on the next layer of rock there was a fully developed space faring civilization.
If the bible survives that long, they’ll have corraborating evidence that some sort of fusion came upon the earth by way of space aliens and local talent because they’ll see that God mated with a woman and the son of God was born.
I believe Jesus is the son of God. (I don’t believe in the space alien stuff.)
Dr. Hunter posed some interesting questions, well, at first he did, then he turned on his own argument and began to poo-poo the studies (one an essay from Dartmouth College, and the other a fascinating piece in Science Daily) without supporting his rationale. He got one thing right - the presumption of three students that micro-RNA could explain the Cambrian explosion (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19472371 “We propose that because phenotypic variation decreases through geologic time, because microRNAs (miRNAs) increase genic precision, by turning an imprecise number of mRNA transcripts into a more precise number of protein molecules, and because miRNAs are continuously being added to metazoan genomes through geologic time, miRNAs might be instrumental in the canalization of development.”)is tenuous at best.
His citation of the Science Daily article to bolster his nay-bobbery was unfortunate and misplaced. There is simply no way that he can properly write a supportable critique in just 39 lines (only 39 lines written by him, the rest of the article is quotes).
The libs have the “daily KOS, and the DU...
Thanks to GGG, FR has the “Daily FOS”
So it wasn't 6000 years ago afterall?
“Why does ID need ‘science’ to proclaim that life is too complex to investigate further?”
And then you used the word “zealot”. New Oxford American says a zealot is, “a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals,” and further adds, “A zealot exhibits not only extreme devotion but vehement activity in support of a cause or goal.”
You asked a question that was predicated on a lie. Further, you know it is predicated on a lie.
a) A zealot exhibits extreme devotion and you seem particularly devoted to something you know is a lie.
b) A zealot exhibits vehement activity in support of a cause or goal. Vehement is defined as “showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense”. Once again this seems to fit the description of someone who proffers a lie and knows that that’s what they are doing.
It appears that “zealot” would describe you specifically. Pot/kettle maybe?
God did it!
I don’t question how long he took, or why he has allowed these arguments to come up. I just know that IS one God.
I love learning about history, from the dinosaurs to ancient structures telling of the solstices, from the study of apes to DNA.
But, my DNA was created by God, and so was yours. Thanks!
God did it!
I don’t question how long he took, or why he has allowed these arguments to come up. I just know that THERE IS one God.
I love learning about history, from the dinosaurs to ancient structures telling of the solstices, from the study of apes to DNA.
But, my DNA was created by God, and so was yours. Thanks!
They concede that there actually was an Upper Jurasic period, but it occurred around 2348 BC (Note that it's one year, not a range!). Of course, the Cambrian was a few months earlier than that!
Yes, I own a dictionary, too. Want to know the definition of “deranged”?
“Thanks to GGG, FR has the “Daily FOS””
It brings a smile to my face every day!
“Yes, I own a dictionary, too. Want to know the definition of ‘deranged’?”
It appears that your dictionary is out of date. Please download the latest version.
In the meanwhile I will propose that a deranged zealot is a man who posts a lie that he knows is a lie, fails to defend his lie, then proceeds to obfuscate when called out.
I’m sorry—I can’t separate the charge from the angst. What was the lie again, Len?
“Why does ID need ‘science’ to proclaim that life is too complex to investigate further?”
I have followed this debate for over 30 years. In all that time I have never heard anyone on either side, evolutionist or creationist, proclaim that life was too complex to investigate further.
You are fully aware of that fact yet you posted the above lie to further an agenda. Sounds exactly like a deranged zealot with plenty of angst to me.
“In all that time I have never heard anyone on either side, evolutionist or creationist, proclaim that life was too complex to investigate further.”
A cornerstone of ID is the concept of “irreducible complexity”. To paraphrase: we can’t figure out how it got here, so we’ll just say that that’s the way it was designed.
Did you miss that?
It has been said on this forum, Leonard. That the complexity of biological systems refute any proposed naturalistic explanation and that creation could be the only logical assumption. Buck was not lying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.