Latest post of the previous page:
That's OK. At least you properly put it in quote tags so it was clear what you were doing...Tetenterre wrote:PS: Alan, I'm not intending to make a habit of C&P huge screeds.
Latest post of the previous page:
That's OK. At least you properly put it in quote tags so it was clear what you were doing...Tetenterre wrote:PS: Alan, I'm not intending to make a habit of C&P huge screeds.
Tetenterre wrote:Hey, Pahu, have you considered reading and understanding the stuff here: Answers in Science? Here's a little taster for you, ported from the Talk Origins Archive, in response to your recent drivel:
PS: Alan, I'm not intending to make a habit of C&P huge screeds.Claim CC300:
Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 80-81.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 60-62.
Response:
References:
- The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).
- There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).
- Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).
Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.
And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.- The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.
- There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:
- The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
- Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
- The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
- Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
- Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
- Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
- Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).
- Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).
- Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).
Allwood, A. C. et al. 2006. Stromatolite reef from the Early Archaean era of Australia. Nature 441: 714-718. See also Awramik, Stanley M. 2006. Respect for stromatolites. Nature 441: 700-701.
Brocks, J. J., G. A. Logan, R. Buick and R. E. Summons, 1999. Archean molecular fossils and the early rise of eukaryotes. Science 285: 1033-1036. See also Knoll, A. H., 1999. A new molecular window on early life. Science 285: 1025-1026. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5430/1025
Brown, Kathryn S., 1999. Deep Green rewrites evolutionary history of plants. Science 285: 990-991.
Budd, Graham E. and Sören Jensen. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla. Biological Reviews 75: 253-295.
Canfield, D. E. and A. Teske, 1996. Late Proterozoic rise in atmospheric oxygen concentration inferred from phylogenetic and sulphur-isotope studies. Nature 382: 127-132. See also: Knoll, A. H., 1996. Breathing room for early animals. Nature 382: 111-112.
Carroll, Robert L., 1997. Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, J.-Y. et al., 2000. Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4457-4462. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4457
Chen, J.-Y. et al., 2004. Small bilaterian fossils from 40 to 55 million years before the Cambrian. Science 305: 218-222, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1099213 . See also Stokstad, E., 2004. Controversial fossil could shed light on early animals' blueprint. Science 304: 1425.
Collins, Allen G., 1994. Metazoa: Fossil record. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html
Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford.
Cook, P. J. and J. H. Shergold (eds.), 1986. Phosphate Deposits of the World, Volume 1. Proterozoic and Cambrian Phosphorites. Cambridge University Press.
Furnes, H., N. R. Banerjee, K. Muehlenbachs, H. Staudigel and M. de Wit, 2004. Early life recorded in Archean pillow lavas. Science 304: 578-581.
Hoffman, Paul F. et al., 1998. A Neoproterozoic snowball earth. Science 281: 1342-1346. See also: Kerr, Richard A., 1998. Did an ancient deep freeze nearly doom life? Science 281: 1259,1261.
Kerr, Richard A., 2000. An appealing snowball earth that's still hard to swallow. Science 287: 1734-1736.
Logan, G. A., J. M. Hayes, G. B. Hieshima and R. E. Summons, 1995. Terminal Proterozoic reorganization of biogeochemical cycles. Nature 376: 53-56. See also Walter, M., 1995. Faecal pellets in world events. Nature 376: 16-17.
Lipps, J. H. and P. W. Signor (eds.), 1992. Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa. New York: Plenum Press.
Martin, M. W. et al., 2000. Age of Neoproterozoic bilatarian body and trace fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for metazoan evolution. Science 288: 841-845. See also Kerr, Richard A., 2000. Stretching the reign of early animals. Science 288: 789.
Miller, Arnold I., 1997. Dissecting global diversity patterns: Examples from the Ordovician radiation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 85-104.
Porter, Susannah M. and Andrew H. Knoll, 2000. Testate amoebae in the Neoproterozoic Era: evidence from vase-shaped microfossils in the Chuar Group, Grand Canyon. Paleobiology 26(3): 360-385.
Rasmussen, B., S. Bengtson, I. R. Fletcher and N. J. McNaughton, 2002. Discoidal impressions and trace-like fossils more than 1200 million years old. Science 296: 1112-1115.
Schopf, J. W., 1993. Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New evidence of the antiquity of life. Science 260: 640-646.
Shen, Y., R. Buick and D. E. Canfield, 2001. Isotopic evidence for microbial sulphate reduction in the early Archaean era. Nature 410: 77-81.
Thomas, A. L. R., 1997. The breath of life -- did increased oxygen levels trigger the Cambrian Explosion? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12: 44-45.
Valentine, James W., Allen G. Collins and C. Porter Meyer, 1994. Morphological complexity increase in metazoans. Paleobiology 20(2): 131-142.
Wang, D. Y.-C., S. Kumar and S. B. Hedges, 1999. Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 266: 163-71.
Further Reading:
Conway Morris, Simon. 1998. The Crucible of Creation. Oxford.
Conway Morris, Simon. 2000. The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4426-4429. (technical)
Schopf, J. William. 2000. Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(13): 6947-6953. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6947
Your link begins with this statement: "That life on Earth during the past 3 billion years has evolved from single-celled organisms to complex and diverse creatures, including humans, is indeed a fact." The article following that assertion does not give any evidence supporting it. Instead it is filled with more evidence free assertions. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:Tetenterre wrote:Pahu, I'll consider engaging you in debate only when you have shown some indication that you have read and understood the parts of http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ relevant to the topic under discussion. Life is too short for me to waste it in an attempt to educate the willfully ignorant.
[Please, Pahu, no more silly and unnecessary graphics. And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does. This isn't rocket science. - Admin]
[center]The Evidence of Nothing[/center][/color]
Evaluating evidence is a key component in the search for truth, not only in science but in other areas of life. The ability to identify supporting facts and data is vital for proving or disproving a hypothesis, whether it relates to a scientific theory, a legal claim, or some other matter. There are times, however, when the absence of corroborative data counts just as strongly as evidence in its own right.
Rules of Evidence
Over the past centuries, the search for truth in science has been formalized into the process known as the scientific method, whereby theories are developed and tested according to a generally accepted standard. In a similar fashion, the legal profession operates by what is known as the Rules of Evidence.1 Developed over hundreds of years and brought to America via English Common Law, these rules are relied upon to decide disputes over financial transactions, inheritance, land, parental custody of minor children, and criminal matters such as whether a convicted killer should be executed. Circumstantial evidence, analyzed by principles of forensic science, may involve a broken knife at the scene of a burglary, or pistol discharge evidence on the clothes of a suspect.2
For generations now, we Americans have trusted these Evidence Rules with our lives, our liberties, and our properties. Accordingly, in legal controversies, the Rules of Evidence serve as a vital vehicle for seriously searching out and reliably reaching (it is hoped) the truth. Real truth stands up to being tested. And even the absence of evidence can operate as a silent witness, testifying to a circumstance where there is nothing, when there should be something.
But what would happen if we applied the same principles of the Evidence Rules to analyzing other types of disputes, such as the scientific controversies about origins? Before answering that question, let us consider how the evidence of "nothing, when there should be something" was used to sentence a medical doctor to jail time for asserting false claims.
Circumstantial Evidence of "Nothing"
This Medicare fraud case involved years of federal court proceedings, with one of the appeals being decided last year.3 Part of the convicting evidence was nothing--literally nothing, when there should have been something. In the related cases of Okoro and Akpan (see note 3 below), Victor Okoro, M.D., in concert with others, was accused of fraudulent Medicare billing practices, which conflicted with his "medical missionary" trips and a bogus charity called the Sisters of Grace. The appellate court commented on Dr. Okoro's Medicare fraud:
Although some of the patients |in Texas| received physical therapy treatments and some were examined by Okoro, each patient signed blank sign-in sheets and blank patient forms. In addition, Okoro signed most of the forms himself, yet many of the patients testified that he had never examined them....Okoro signed patient documents that stated that he had treated those patients on specific dates and at specific times on which Okoro could not possibly have rendered services. For example, many of the dates on which Okoro alleged that he provided services were dates when he was in Nigeria.4
Of course, the federal prosecutor had no difficulty proving that Okoro was absent from Texas, due to his using airports to exit the United States. Likewise, federal records provided the dates when Dr. Okoro re-entered America, so the official federal government records were relevant (and admissible) for showing the dates of Okoro's travels in and out of the country.
Yet just as important, from a circumstantial evidence standpoint, was the government's proof of "nothing" on other legally important dates. The federal government's trial proof included official government records with absences of entries on the dates in question, showing that Dr. Okoro was not recorded as having re-entered the United States in time for him to have performed the medical services for which he billed Medicare.
This illustrates the power of an argument from silence--the forensic force of such a silent witness can buttress a sentence of felony jail time. So, technically speaking, how can "nothing" become admissible circumstantial evidence at trial? Federal Evidence Rule 803(10) provides one such forensic possibility:
Absence of Public Record or Entry. To prove the absence of a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of which a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, was regularly made and preserved by a public office or agency, evidence in the form of a certification in accordance with rule 902, if necessary, or testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose the record, report, statement, or data compilation, or entry. |emphasis added|
Evidence Rule 803(7) is similar, but it applies to admitting as trial evidence the fact that regularly recorded "business records" have a relevant "absence" of an entry, as well as where and when a documentary "nothing" is forensically important.5
Origins and the Evidence of Nothing
So how does the evidence of nothing demonstrated by this particular Medicare fraud scheme relate to the question of origins? The comparison can be illustrated by applying the Evidence Rules that govern "nothing, when there should be something" to the problem of "missing links." This evidentiary insight may be unusual, but it is certainly not new.6
When examining the quixotic quest for missing links, it is like déjà vu--literally nothing, when there should have been something. To use the logic of Rule 803(10), a diligent search for these so-called transitional form fossils over a period of 150 years has failed to disclose them. What kind of empirical evidence is that, regarding the origin of earth's life forms? The years of diligent search indicate a glaring absence of molecules-to-man evolutionary phylogeny in the fossil record. In other words, the empirical data of earth's fossils, if analyzed forensically, show that evolutionary phylogeny notions are just empty imaginings, refuted by the evidence of nothing.
Dr. John Morris has recently summarized what the global fossil record contains, and (more importantly) what it does not contain.
Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more. If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one.7
This argument from silence is an absence in the evidentiary record--a "nothing, where there should be something" if evolutionary theory were true. But evolutionary theory is not true, so the real world's fossil record has been providing irrefutable evidence, by the absence of missing links, for a long, long time now (see the articles noted below8 for several thorough analyses of the fossil record's evidence).
Conclusion
Some may say that the above analysis is "much ado about nothing." However, there is so much "science falsely so called" involved9 that it is imperative that we use the greatest care and the highest standards in our quest to uncover the true history of our world. And sometimes, "nothing" is itself evidence for the truth.
References
1. The Federal Rules of Evidence have been cloned, with only small modifications, by the 50 states. According to Rule 102, the Federal Rules of Evidence are supposed to be applied "to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined." This article focuses mainly on Evidence Rules 803(7) and 803(10), which respectively govern the admissibility as evidence of an absence of information that could have been (but was not) entered into a regular business record or an official government record.
2. See page 41 of The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence by Simon Greenleaf, originally published in 1874, reprinted in 1995 (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel).
3. Trial in federal district court began in September 2002. One appellate ruling was published as United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2005), and a later appellate ruling appears at United States v. Okoro, 213 Fed. Appx. 348, 2007 WL 98804 (5th Cir. 2007) (non-precedent).
4. Quoting from United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d at 364-365.
5. The same forensic principle can be applied to critiquing historical data. See, e.g., page 146 in Bill Cooper's After the Flood (Chichester, UK: New Wine Press, 1995).
6. Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, 41.
7. Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
8. Gish, D. 1983. Creating the Missing Link: A Tale about a Whale. Acts & Facts. 12 (9); Morris, H. 2001. Evolution Is Religion--Not Science. Acts & Facts. 30 (2); Sherwin, F. 2007. Follow the Evidence! Acts & Facts. 36 (4); Gish, D. 1984. Evolution: The Changing Scene. Acts & Facts. 13 (10); Parker, G. 1980. Creation, Selection, and Variation. Acts & Facts. 9 (10); Morris, H. 1979. Revolutionary Evolutionism. Acts & Facts. 8 (11); Parker, G. 1981. Origin of Mankind. Acts & Facts. 10 (11); Gish, D. 1981. Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation, Part I & II. Acts & Facts. 10 (5). See also Duane Gish's book Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, available at http://www.icr.org/store.
9. 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV).
http://www.icr.org/article/3763/218/
Yes, of course, absence of evidence can in some contexts mean evidence of absence, especially in the case of an individual known to be outside a country at the time in which he claimed to be providing medical services and for which he was charging. But this is pretty remote, I would say, from the distant history of life on this planet. Certainly there are many "missing links" between species, but does this really disprove evolution? In particular, does it negate the cases where there ARE pretty strong links of this kind? I think not. And, in the legal case you adduced, the alternatives were between two scenarios, viz that the medic in question did perform the services for which he billed, and that he did not so. OK, let us transfer the problem to the distant history of life on this planet. The case for evolution of species is not perfect, as it never would be. So Pahu, what's the alternative theory, and what's the evidence for it?Pahu wrote:the evidence of nothing
The case for evolution of species is non-existent. The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof. The alternative is creation. The evidence is God's creation: Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God and His creation.animist wrote:Yes, of course, absence of evidence can in some contexts mean evidence of absence, especially in the case of an individual known to be outside a country at the time in which he claimed to be providing medical services and for which he was charging. But this is pretty remote, I would say, from the distant history of life on this planet. Certainly there are many "missing links" between species, but does this really disprove evolution? In particular, does it negate the cases where there ARE pretty strong links of this kind? I think not. And, in the legal case you adduced, the alternatives were between two scenarios, viz that the medic in question did perform the services for which he billed, and that he did not so. OK, let us transfer the problem to the distant history of life on this planet. The case for evolution of species is not perfect, as it never would be. So Pahu, what's the alternative theory, and what's the evidence for it?Pahu wrote:the evidence of nothing
And you've still not pointed to the place in the Bible where the text indicates any information about the age of the Earth or any other part of the universe. Come on, Pahu!!
You originally said:Pahu wrote:As to the Bible showing the age of the Earth or universe, there are no figures. But if you trace back the chronology from Adam in Genesis 5, you get a pretty close idea.
So, when you trace back this chronology, you somehow or other get a number ('about 6,000' BCE) that isn't explicitly in the bible. But how accurate is that number? What's the margin of error?According to the Bible, the universe was created about 6000 BC
Really?Pahu wrote:The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof.
1 Nautiloids to ammonoids
2 Cephalopods
3 Evolution of insects
4 Evolution of spiders
5 Invertebrates to fish
6 Chondrichthyes
7 Bony fish
8 Fish to tetrapods
9 Amphibians to amniotes
10 Turtles
11 From lizards to snakes
12 Lizards
13 Pterosaurs
14 Archosaurs to dinosaurs
15 Dinosauria
16 Dinosaurs to birds
17 Bird evolution
18 Synapsid ("mammal-like reptiles") to mammals
19 Evolution of mammals
20 Early artiodactylans to whales
21 Evolution of sirenians
22 Evolution of pinnipeds
23 Evolution of the horse
24 Human evolution
25 See also
26 References
27 External links
If there was nothing before the universe existed from which it appeared, there was nothing supernatural from which it appeared. This is, of course, inconsistent with your conclusion.The evidence is God's creation: Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God and His creation.
At the site I gave you (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/), there are three links to evidence of transitional fossils. Why are you pretending that they don't exist? Doesn't your religion require you to be truthful?Pahu wrote:The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof.
The universe is physical. God is spirit.Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Really?Pahu wrote:The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils
Where is evidence for evolution in that list? Dating methods are unreliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:1 Nautiloids to ammonoids
2 Cephalopods
3 Evolution of insects
4 Evolution of spiders
5 Invertebrates to fish
6 Chondrichthyes
7 Bony fish
8 Fish to tetrapods
9 Amphibians to amniotes
10 Turtles
11 From lizards to snakes
12 Lizards
13 Pterosaurs
14 Archosaurs to dinosaurs
15 Dinosauria
16 Dinosaurs to birds
17 Bird evolution
18 Synapsid ("mammal-like reptiles") to mammals
19 Evolution of mammals
20 Early artiodactylans to whales
21 Evolution of sirenians
22 Evolution of pinnipeds
23 Evolution of the horse
24 Human evolution
25 See also
26 References
27 External links
Another pointless graphic and another copy and paste, Pahu? Really? Please try harder to abide by what I said yesterday. - admin
'Living Fossils' Point to Recent Creation
According to Genesis 1:21, “God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind.” The creation of original, distinct creature kinds confronts the evolutionary teaching that animals can endlessly morph from one form to another. Recent news reports reveal two clear illustrations of sea creatures living and reproducing according to their kinds right from the start.
The stunningly beautiful chambered nautilus features its famous coiled and symmetrical shell. Deep-sea shell hunters overharvest the tentacled predators by setting baited traps, sometimes as deep as 2,000 feet below the surface of southwest Pacific Ocean waters. Fishermen apparently suffer no regulations as they supply a growing market for the alluring nautilus shells.
Marine biologists including University of Washington biologist Peter Ward, concerned about the declining nautilus population, study deep oceans to better understand the creatures’ numbers and distribution. Using a submersible camera, Ward reported a nautilus sighting in July 2015 off the coast of Papua New Guinea. The last time anyone reported the creature in that area was back in 1984.1
The sighting renews hope that perhaps the animal may resist overfishing by somehow setting up shop in less-fished waters. Meanwhile, the always-fascinating nautilus shell reminds researchers of the mystery its fossil counterparts present. The New York Times wrote,
The fossil record dates the ancestors of the nautilus to the late Cambrian period, 500 million years ago. Some grew to be true sea monsters, with gargantuan shells and big tentacles. Over eons, the thousands of species have dwindled to a handful.2
By the way, “the fossil record” doesn’t actually date anything—scientists do that. But what are the odds that these creatures could have persisted unchanged for half-a-billion years?
According to this secular story, nautiluses avoided evolving upward—they haven’t gained a single new feature. Their genetic variation actually narrowed as their species variation diminished. It’s a good thing we have not yet fished the chambered nautilus to extinction, since by observing them we can appreciate their fine design and compare them to similar-looking Cambrian fossils that showcase creation according to the nautilus kind.
The same can now be said for the new “earliest” sea turtle fossil. Germany’s Senckenberg Research Institute released news of fossil sea turtles unearthed in 2007 by an amateur paleontologist in Columbia. Senckenberg researcher Edwin Cadena and California State University, Fullerton’s James Parham analyzed the remains. They assigned the fossil turtle to the same superfamily (Chelonioidea) that contains living sea turtles—like loggerheads and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. According to the Senckenberg Research Institute, “The almost completely preserved skeleton from the Cretaceous, with a length of nearly 2 meters, shows all of the characteristic traits of modern marine turtles.”3
They also wrote, “Sea turtles descended from terrestrial and freshwater turtles that arose approximately 230 million years ago.” But just like the nautilus, sea turtles retain all their core characteristics and thus show no evidence of evolution after “at least 120 million” supposed years.4 Shouldn’t this find make the evolutionary story of sea turtle origins even more difficult to believe?
No fossils document turtles’ supposed descent from land to sea, nor any upward change in nautiluses. Instead, these “ancient” fossil creatures look like their modern counterparts—just as if they were created to reproduce according to their kinds.
References
1. Montanari, S. ‘Living Fossil’ Spotted In The South Pacific For The First Time In Three Decades. Forbes Science. Posted on forbes.com August 28, 2015, accessed September 3, 2015.
2. Broad, W. 2011. Loving the Chambered Nautilus to Death. The New York Times. Posted on nytimes.com October 24, 2011, accessed September 8, 2015.
3. Oldest Fossil Sea Turtle Discovered—The fossilized turtle is at least 120 million years old. 4. 5. Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum. AlphaGalileo. Posted on alphagalileo.org September 7, 2015, accessed September 8, 2015.
http://www.icr.org/article/8974/268If there was nothing before the universe existed from which it appeared, there was nothing supernatural from which it appeared. This is, of course, inconsistent with your conclusion.The evidence is God's creation: Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God and His creation.
Now, if you are going to persist with this daft argument, you might at least try to get it into a form that isn't so obviously incoherent.
[...]Pahu wrote:The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof.
Which? Give reasons for your answer.Dating methods are unreliable.
Well, if you say so, I shall accept it. But if there was nothing before the universe existed from which it appeared, there was no spirit from which it appeared. Wouldn't you agree?The universe is physical. God is spirit.
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:[...]Pahu wrote:The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof.
Where is evidence for evolution in that list?
Whether transitional fossils are evidence for evolution is one matter.Whether transitional fossils exist is another.
Now, I see that tetenterre has put a specific question to you on the latter point. Can you answer it?
Dating methods are unreliable.[center]Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms[/center]
The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.
According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:
1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.
However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.
Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.
Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.
Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.
Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.
In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.
http://www.icr.org/fossils-stasis
Which? Give reasons for your answer.
[center]Radiometric Dating Flaws[/center]
For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.
Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:
• First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.”
• Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
• Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.
These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.
http://www.icr.org/article/6246
http://www.icr.org/article/7848
http://www.icr.org/article/4816
http://www.icr.org/article/5656
http://www.icr.org/article/1169
No. As I explained, the universe is physical. God is spirit. I was speaking about the physical universe when I said nothing existed before the universe existed.Well, if you say so, I shall accept it. But if there was nothing before the universe existed from which it appeared, there was no spirit from which it appeared. Wouldn't you agree?
did you not understand?And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does.
Prove it.Pahu wrote:The universe is physical. God is spirit.
Proven in the post above.Alan H wrote:Pahu
Which bit of:did you not understand?And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does.
Prove it.Pahu wrote:The universe is physical. God is spirit.
[center]Earth/Universe Age[/center]And also say how accurate your number for the age of the universe is.
Proven in the post above.Alan H wrote:Pahu
Which bit of:did you not understand?And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does.
Prove it.Pahu wrote:The universe is physical. God is spirit.
[center]Earth/Universe Age[/center]And also say how accurate your number for the age of the universe is.
No, no you didn't.Pahu wrote:Proven in the post above.Alan H wrote:Pahu
Which bit of:did you not understand?And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does.
Prove it.Pahu wrote:The universe is physical. God is spirit.
Please feel free to provide the conclusion from all that to my question. You can choose whatever form you wish to note the limits of your approximation, but the usual scientific, well-understood, clear and concise method is 8,000 +x, -y years. Please try to specify x and y.[center]Earth/Universe Age[/center]And also say how accurate your number for the age of the universe is.
[4,251 words and three large graphics deleted by admin. Did you not understand what I said previously?]
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1260517
You asked a question and I answered it and you erased it because you did not like my answer. Pathetic!Pahu wrote:Proven in the post above.Alan H wrote:Pahu
Which bit of:did you not understand?And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does.
Prove it.Pahu wrote:The universe is physical. God is spirit.
[center]Earth/Universe Age[/center]And also say how accurate your number for the age of the universe is.
[4,251 words and three large graphics deleted by admin. Did you not understand what I said previously?]
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1260517