Posted on 07/05/2008 5:23:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
Looking at the photo of the reconstructed skull above reminded me that in a real sense the only evidence for Darwinism is forensic—typically fossilized bones alleged to be extremely ancient. Unlike the TV show CSI though very old forensic evidence often does not yield intelligible proof, be it about a crime, or a theory.
The existence of evidence for similar hominids to Homo Sapiens Sapiens no more proves we are descended from them any more than the existence of the Chinese proves my family is descended from them.
Duane T. Gish, quoting the evolutionist Errol White:
“We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling ‘Darwin is God and I, So-and-so, am his prophet’—the recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the Neo-Darwinian Jericho.”
Their evidence is asking stupid questions like "If God created the universe, then who or what created God"? (Evolutionists try to corner you into believing you must provide scientific evidence for God's existence.)
Answer: God is God. God is the Creator. If God needed someone or something to create Him, He would not be God. You don't need science to explain God.
Such as finding useful explanations, which probably would seem to silence something but doesn't silence anything except by contrast with useless conjecture.
Gish is a creationist. You can't expect him to tell the truth about the theory of evolution, can you?
Just because an old fool says something doesn’t make it true.
You can purchase invertebrate fossils here
http://www.paleodirect.com/invertebratefossils.htm
Apparently it escapes you that people can choose their faith. When children walk into a classroom, and they are told ["Here is the theory of evolution. Accept it as fact. There will be no discussion about it's reliability."]; that's indoctrination. Wait until evolution is proven to be fact before teaching it as fact.
The question is: what life forms preceded the creatures of the Cambrian explosion, and where is the evidence?
In science, how is a theory "proven to be a fact?"
Please explain the process for those of who are not familiar with how this is accomplished.
“Gish is a creationist. You can’t expect him to tell the truth about the theory of evolution, can you?”
If your first priority is to protect a worldview based on either Darwinism or atheistic naturalism, do not read Gish’s book. Don’t go anywhere near anything written by Michael J. Behe, either, and you must completely ignore the major arguments presented by both Gish and Behe.
Sarcastic tone aside—I would say with great enthusiasm yes, look with careful focus into the writings and thinking of these men, as well as that of any serious scientists and philosophers you encounter along the way.
If you find yourself criticizing them based on labels alone or defaming their character, I would suggest you take note of this tactic.
"It's important to remember that what we call "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. In order to be available to us, the remains of ancient plants and animals have to be preserved first, and this means that they need to have fossilizable parts and to be buried in an environment that will not destroy them.
It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them. An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered. Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion".
The best record of the Cambrian diversification is the Burgess Shale in British Columbia. Laid down in the middle-Cambrian, when the "explosion" had already been underway for several million years, this formation contains the first appearance in the fossil record of brachiopods, with clamlike shells, as well as trilobites, mollusks, echinoderms, and many odd animals that probably belong to extinct lineages. They include Opabinia, with five eyes and a nose like a fire hose, and Wiwaxia, an armored slug with two rows of upright scales.
The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion? Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.
Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.
Interpretations of this critical period are subject of lively debate among scientists like Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University. Gould emphasizes the role of chance. He argues that if one could "rerun the tape" of that evolutionary event, a completely different path might have developed and would likely not have included a humanlike creature. Morris, on the other hand, contends that the environment of our planet would have created selection pressures that would likely have produced similar forms of life to those around us -- including humans".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
I have read quite a bit of creationist literature, and studied a number of creationist websites.
When it comes to science they are either willfully self-deluded or they are lying.
They make the most outrageous claims about science, things that are documented to be incorrect, and when corrected they continue to make those same claims.
The reason for this is that they are not doing science; they are promoting their particular religious views. They are not bound by the rules of science, nor by evidence. This leads to repetition of the same falsehoods over and over.
Some of these claims have been seen, and refuted, so often that they have been numbered for easier reference. See Index to Creationist Claims by Mark Isaak.
BS. Science provides evidence to back up its rational claims. Religion does not. Religious indoctrination is the reason Hindu children are Hindus, Christian children are Christians, and why you believe a big daddy in the sky created everythinhg by speaking words in a vacuum.
“Their evidence is asking stupid questions like “If God created the universe, then who or what created God”?”
Yes you do! You do if you’re talking about God in a class that purports to be about science. For example, if the class is called “biology” or “General Science” or “Creation Science”
“Evolutionists try to corner you into believing you must provide scientific evidence for God’s existence.)”
Not necessarily, if the class is about “Religion” or “Philosophy”.
An excellent reason not to read books by the old fool: "Tiktaalik roseae, was recently discovered on Canada. The fossil is important because it fills in a gap in the transition from fish to amphibians and provides clues as to how the transition took place". See pictures here:
http://afarensis.blogsome.com/2006/04/19/tiktaalik-roseae-and-the-origins-of-tetrapods/
Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)
The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)
Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
I wasn’t very clear in my reply to your post. I’m not against discussion of religion in public schools. However, my point was that assertions based on faith do not belong in classes that are supposed to be about science. By definition, science is restricted to empirical evidence and the rules of logic. T
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.