Report comment to moderator

On what grounds do you say that? The commonly accepted age of the Earth is around 4-5 billion years. On what grounds do you knock it down to 1.2 billion?

Also, I’m well aware that theistic evolution doesn’t square with the story in the Bible. The story in the Bible is a creation myth like the creation myths of every other ancient culture. It may or may not impart some spiritual truth, but it is not literally, scientifically true.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

It does not invalidate evolution in any way. You cite it as if you think it does (or else, I have no idea what your point is.)

Ancestry isnt the point. The point is, sudden change occurs, the mechanism that does it isnt my point. Steady gradualism differs from sudden appearance. PE is not steady gradualism, its sudden appearance from an ancestor.

Um … no, it’s not. At least, not unless you define sudden as tens of millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations. PE is still VERY SLOW by human time measures. Occurring in 50 million years instead of 200 million is still an evolutionary time scale.

The time scale is irrelevant because on the billions of years scale, 70 to 80 million years is practically next week.

And what does the “billions of years scale” have to do with it? The overall history of all life on Earth spans about 4.5 billion years, but for the most part, it concerns single-celled organisms. The existence of more complex life forms is measured in the hundreds of millions of years, and lot of mammalian evolution leading to the present day in the tens of millions.

80 million years is a pretty long time by any measure.

Your “massive liquefaction” nonesense has been debunked and refuted a thousand times. If a global flood had caused fossilization, we would find many fossilized modern animals mixed in with the extinct ones. We don’t. That alone is enough to prove the idea false, but there are a lot of other reasons too.

Try reading a book on evolution not written by a Creationist.

Oh, and the old “no transitional fossils” falsehood: Go here and be enlightened.

Report comment to moderator

I find the fossil record to be proof of massive liquefaction from a global flood. Liquefaction would easily sort sedimentary strata and create/sort fossils. It would cause rapid burial and preserve even soft body tissues. Thus the timescale becomes months at most.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction2.html

Report comment to moderator

I never said that or implied that. You said “of the sudden appearance of fully formed organisms, etc. There is nothing at all like that found in nature.”

But there is, by many evolutionists own standards. I dont agree with punctuated equlibria either, just using the theory for my point. Most scientists agree that fully functional animal phyla arose suddenly. The means by that is inferred or theorized, the point is, whether its creation, PE, or some other mechanism, life arose suddenly in the fossil record.

“the Cambrian Explosion lasted about 70-80 million years.”

The time scale is irrelevant because on the billions of years scale, 70 to 80 million years is practically next week. Further, at some point the CE has its start, it arises suddenly because nothing comes before it, hence “explosion”. If it wasnt an issue, Gould and others wouldnt have spent time on it and tried to explain it.

“1. “Rapid” in evolutionary terms is still multiple generations over many many thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of years.’

The fossilization process must occur rapidly, it cant occur over thousands of years.

“If fossilization were as widespread as you imagine, we’d have a lot more complete and intact fossils than we do. (And besides, isn’t the usual Creationism claim that we don’t have ENOUGH complete fossils to reconstruct prehistoric life?)”

There are plenty of fossils, partial or complete. What you do not have and what several others make a point of is that you dont have “transitional/gradual” fossils. Thats not my point though. My meaning of widespread is that you find them all over the world including within the artic circle. You have to account for widespread rapid burial.

“2. PE is a description of a mode of evolution from one species to another, NOT the sudden appearance of an animal or plant with no ancestry. It differs from steady gradualism, but not in the way the Creationists wish it did.”

Ancestry isnt the point. The point is, sudden change occurs, the mechanism that does it isnt my point. Steady gradualism differs from sudden appearance. PE is not steady gradualism, its sudden appearance from an ancestor.

Report comment to moderator

I mean really SteveG its obvious you lack any knowledge of science and you do a disfavor even to other evolutionists by not even having a grasp of the situation.

Uh huh. And you think punctuated equilibria validates Creationism?

You obviously don’t know what punctuated equilibrium is. It is the idea that organisms generally change very little over many generations and then, when their environment changes, and in particular when a small population is isolated from the rest, evolutionary change may happen rapidly.

Ernst Mayr first proposed it in the ’40s, and Gould and a few others refined it in the ’70s. The thinking behind it is that the effect of beneficial mutations is absorbed and mostly lost in a large population, but more likely to rise to dominance in a small, isolated population.

Why is this not in any way evidence for Creationism? Several reasons, of which probably the most important are:

1. “Rapid” in evolutionary terms is still multiple generations over many many thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

2. PE is a description of a mode of evolution from one species to another, NOT the sudden appearance of an animal or plant with no ancestry. It differs from steady gradualism, but not in the way the Creationists wish it did.

Your reference to an “explosion” suggests you’re thinking of the Cambrian Explosion. What you obviously don’t know is that, again, in evolutionary time scales, “explosions” are not instantaneous … the Cambrian Explosion lasted about 70-80 million years. That does not sound lke Genesis 1 to me.

Now, your remaining questions are similarly offbase. If fossilization were as widespread as you imagine, we’d have a lot more complete and intact fossils than we do. (And besides, isn’t the usual Creationism claim that we don’t have ENOUGH complete fossils to reconstruct prehistoric life?)

So in short, Thorn, I think I understand evolutionary theory well enough. You, however, could use some remedial courses.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

So punctuated equilibria is just nonsense from Gould then? You know the attempt to explain the SUDDEN APPEARANCE of fully formed organisms???? Thats why its called an EXPLOSION…

I mean really SteveG its obvious you lack any knowledge of science and you do a disfavor even to other evolutionists by not even having a grasp of the situation.

here’s another few facts to chew on this morning. Fossilization of complete organisms requires rapid burial and water. It has to cement and do so before erosion and decaying occurs.

Please explain what mechanism caused such widespread fossilization? Please explain how you get poly strata trees upside down in the fossil record?

The fossil record is not evidence of evolution or eons of time.

Report comment to moderator

Since we’ve been through all of this before and you show no sign of having improved your understanding since then, there really is no point in re-opening it.

Report comment to moderator