Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: Paradise lost

Your Message

Click here to log in

 

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

HTML
Rate Thread

You may rate this thread from 1-star (Terrible) to 5-stars (Excellent) if you wish to do so.

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 10-27-2010, 12:41 PM
    nomaxim

    Re: Paradise lost



    Questions?
  • 10-18-2010, 12:50 PM
    davidwillson

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    You make an excellent argument against my assertion that the Cambrian Explosion was paradise. I have no prove. Yes, I believe that Bible was written by men about God.

    I had a dream about prehistoric creatures awestruck by God in paradise. All animals were prehistoric and there were no homo sapiens or creatures resembling humans. I know that 's slim evidence, but that's it. It also makes sense that God would be there when earthly creatures were in full bloom.

    I know it'll never hold to scientific scrutiny, but what if it's true?
    Yes, and..... if "ifs" and "buts" were candies and nuts....as the saying goes.....

    But, intellectually, don't you really have to follow the evidence? I could understand you point or passion if there were the slightest bit of evidence that supported the idea of a supernatural being but, again, it doesn't exists...and the idea of claiming "god of the gaps" is intellectually dishonest.

    My two cents.
  • 10-14-2010, 03:22 AM
    Lord_jag

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    No, I see no contradiction. You keep insisting on such. I have consistently maintained that evolution is correct with respect to what has happened after God created the universe and species. Therefore, I have stated that evolution was within God's foreknowledge.

    Now, I must admit to considering an earlier date to God's creation of species. I'm pursuing an independent study of evolution after getting chastised by LogicallyYours and others for jumping to conclusions without an adequate understanding. Thus far, I find much evidence supporting evolution from an early time than I thought possible.
    That's fine... Science hasn't come to a conclusion on exactly how abiogenesis happened. That's a good hole for God to hide in until science prooves that one.

    I applaud your attempt to actually seek information. Good for you. Don't accept anything you find. Scrutinize and research every last fact and draw your own conclusions based on research and facts instead of inuendo and speculation.
  • 10-14-2010, 02:40 AM
    LogicallyYours

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    No, I see no contradiction. You keep insisting on such. I have consistently maintained that evolution is correct with respect to what has happened after God created the universe and species. Therefore, I have stated that evolution was within God's foreknowledge.

    Now, I must admit to considering an earlier date to God's creation of species. I'm pursuing an independent study of evolution after getting chastised by LogicallyYours and others for jumping to conclusions without an adequate understanding. Thus far, I find much evidence supporting evolution from an early time than I thought possible.
    Taking you at your word, TalkOrigins is a great resource for finding the answers to questions. They even acknowledge that there are somethings unkown!...

    Panda's Thumb is also a great resource...can be a bit snarky but, well worth the look.

    http://pandasthumb.org/
  • 10-14-2010, 12:24 AM
    nomaxim

    Re: Paradise lost

  • 10-13-2010, 07:52 PM
    Cnance

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Cnance gets trapped in his own logic. If he maintains that god is all-knowing, then he would have been forced to state at the beginning that evolution was within God's foreknowledge. Instead, he tried to prove a contradiction, and we see where all such proofs must end.
    No, I see no contradiction. You keep insisting on such. I have consistently maintained that evolution is correct with respect to what has happened after God created the universe and species. Therefore, I have stated that evolution was within God's foreknowledge.

    Now, I must admit to considering an earlier date to God's creation of species. I'm pursuing an independent study of evolution after getting chastised by LogicallyYours and others for jumping to conclusions without an adequate understanding. Thus far, I find much evidence supporting evolution from an early time than I thought possible.
  • 10-13-2010, 12:19 PM
    LogicallyYours

    Re: Paradise lost

    ...and then there were none. Goodnight, Gracie.
  • 10-12-2010, 05:48 PM
    nomaxim

    Re: Paradise lost

    http://faculty.smu.edu/jwise/big_pro...ctually_honest
    D. Was the Discovery Institute being honest?

    1.
    Deceptive tactics were used to produce the DVD: The producers of the DVD shown by the Discovery Institute did not inform and apparently hid from Prof. James W. Valentine, a renowned member of the scientific community, professor at UC Berkeley, and an expert in the evolution of animal phyla, the fact that they were making a creationist's film on the Cambrian Radiation. He felt he was so misrepresented by the producers of the film, he released the following statement:
    24 September 2009
    What James Valentine Really Thinks About Evolution

    Dr. James Valentine, an evolutionary biologist and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, is featured in the intelligent design movie Darwin's Dilemma.

    I wish to clarify my role in the new film Darwin's Dilemma. When I was interviewed about a decade ago for the material used in this movie, I was unaware that this interview might appear in a film promoting intelligent design. My appearance should not be misconstrued as support for any creationist agenda.

    I support evolution.

    I disagree with the view that the best explanation for the Cambrian record is the action of an "intelligent designer" instantaneously creating phyla. Had the filmmakers bothered to read my book On the Origin of Phyla, they would have understood that I do not support a creationist interpretation of the Cambrian explosion or the fossil record. Scientific findings in many fields, including my own (paleobiology) as well as geology, geophysics, geochemistry, developmental biology, and systematics, have led to a synthesis of the events surrounding the Cambrian explosion that is in full accord with well-established evolutionary principles.

    When watching Darwin's Dilemma, I ask viewers to note:
    *My interview statements do not criticize evolution
    *My interview statements do not promote creationism or intelligent design
    *Even though my interview is interspersed with several intelligent design advocates, I do not share their interpretation of the Cambrian record

    I would like viewers to know:
    *I think evolution is the best scientific interpretation of the fossil record
    *While the religious views of individuals should be respected, scientists also merit respect earned by generations of hard work in their fields.

    Dr. James Valentine
    University of California,
    Berkeley
    2.
    Simon Conway-Morris suffered the similar fate of misrepresentation from the producers of the DVD shown by the Discovery Institute last night.

    3. and 4.
    Misinterpretations (intentional?) by Sternberg (3) and another Discovery Institute Fellow, Michael Behe (4) of a peer-reviewed article by Professors R. Durrett and D. Schmidt of Cornell University (Genetics. 2008 180(3):1501-9) seemingly led to von Sternberg's misinterpretation of the time required to accumulate two mutations. See here for Durrett's explanation of Behe's "naive mathematics". It can be inferred, but not definitively shown (because of the absence of peer reviewed publications), that Sternberg's mathematics is also "naive".

    In his talk, Sternberg attributed to Durrett and Schmidt a view that they do not hold.

    It is hard to imagine that Sternberg was not aware of the very sharp criticism his Discovery Institute colleague Behe received from Durrett.

    It appears that Sternberg was being intellectually dishonest in his talk, trying to claim the support of scientists who don’t actually support his views.

    5.
    The movie didn't consider the positive evidence for thinking that the various animal phyla are related, including genetic similarities that they share distinct from other phyla, and the fact that all earthly life employs basically the same genetic code for translating triples of DNA base-pairs into amino acids.

    This evidence better fits the common descent hypothesis than any (comparatively) plausible intelligent design hypothesis.

    By considering only evidence that favors their hypothesis while omitting well-known evidence against it, the movie-makers are misleading the audience.

    6.
    The Discovery Institute in their discussion of the film misrepresent scientists as holding views that (a quick Google-search reveals) those scientists expressly deny.

    Sternberg presented Durrett & Schmidt as holding that it would take much longer than the 5 million years since our ancestors diverged from chimpanzees for us to have *****ed even two successive mutations.

    However, Durrett & Schmidt themselves say "double mutations can easily have caused a large number of changes in the human genome since our divergence from chimpanzees."

    [See 3. & 4. above.]

    7.
    For an event whose advertisements included "Bring your questions", it is quite striking that they didn't even begin Q&A until 20-30 minutes after the scheduled end of the event. No questions were allowed after any of the "employees'" individual talks.

    This seems much more like an attempt at one-sided indoctrination than an honest discussion of issues.

    8.
    Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute thanked the “SMU administration” for hosting the event.

    This is a blatant suggestion that the event was organized by an academic program of the Southern Methodist University.

    This is patently false: The Darwin's Dilemma program was not organized by any SMU academic program.

    In the spirit of the First Amendment and in respect to the tradition of American freedom of expression, no SMU academic unit attempted to censor in any way the expression of the Discovery Institute's political/theocratic nonscientific event.

    If you are looking for a Darwin/Evolution event organized by SMU academic organizations please go to http://smu.edu/smunews/darwin/.

    9.
    Who is the Intelligent Designer? All evening long I listened intently to hear one of them state who it is.

    Why don't they mention anything on this subject? Could it be the two U.S. Supreme Court losses to Creationism and the Dover, PA Federal District Court decision noting that Intelligent Design is just creationism relabeled? See here.

    On the subject of blatant deception and misrepresentation by the Discovery Institute, have some fun and Google "cdesign proponentsists". Let me know what you find.

    10.
    Is "No items found" the same as "Peer review"? (see below)
    Some other points of interest;
    More God of the Gaps from the DI:

    And again, even if one stipulates that these are not transitional fossils (which I absolutely do not do), the Discovery Institute is using a "God of the Gaps" argument to make this point (again).

    "God of the Gaps" arguments such as these assert that there is no knowable answer or no discoverable fossil, so the Intelligent Designer (God) must be responsible. These arguments end up weakening faith when the fossil is found or the discovery is made. Read Ken Miller's book, FINDING DARWIN'S GOD for a great discussion of the dangers of these arguments (and much more).

    Even More God of the Gaps arguments from the DI:

    A little further down, they state:

    "... those ancestral groups are missing from the fossil record..."

    This is where the Discovery Institute is miraculously transforming the "absence of evidence" into "actual evidence".

    I don't believe science works that way. The absence of evidence is never evidence for anything.

    Sounds like the "God of the Gaps" again. Or perhaps an "argument from incredulity"? Can it be both?

    I leave the distinctions to you.
  • 10-12-2010, 03:41 PM
    LogicallyYours

    Re: Paradise lost

    Here is a great takedown of "Darwin's Dilema"

    http://faculty.smu.edu/jwise/big_pro...m_I_doing_this)

    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....rwins-dilemma/

    Darwin’s Dilemma

    The latest Intelligent Design film, called ‘Darwin’s Dilemma’, attempts to examine a problem that vexed poor Charles Darwin in 1859 – the puzzle of what we now call the ‘Cambrian explosion’. As an Oxford palaeontologist who has been working on this problem since 1966, I have been asked for my opinion on the veracity of its claims. Below are outlined some of what I take to be its more laughable misunderstandings.

    1. The film makes a familiar mistake. There is a misplaced fixation upon beasts of the Burgess Shale. So antiquated is this view that the screenplay for this film could have been written by teachers in 1954, or even by Mack Sennett at Keystone studios in 1912, just after the Burgess Shale biota was first reported by Walcott. It needs to be remembered that the Burgess Shale appears far too late in the fossil record to tell us much about emergence of animals. Modern data shows that the explosion of modern phyla was beginning by about 545 Ma ago, with forms like Cloudina and Sabellidites. Since the Burgess Shale is a mere 505 Ma old, this gives us palaeontologists some 40 million years to play with. What a gift!

    2. A rich fossil record of early animal remains has been discovered from near the end of the Ediacaran period at about 545 Ma to the appearance of calcified trilobites and echinoderms in the Chengjiang biota, some 520 Ma ago. This transitional period, variously known as the Tommotian or Fortunian Stage, contains examples of transitional forms. For example, Halkieria and Maikhanella are probable stem group ‘molluscs’ with multi-element shells; Eccentrotheca and Camenella are taken to be stem group ‘brachiopods’ with multi-element shells. Dozens of scientists have been writing about these materials in recent years. Some 20 million years of evolution has thereby been ignored. Or censored.

    3. The first great mass extinction took place about 520 million years ago, during the Botomian and Toyonian Stages – well before the Burgess Shale. A rich diversity of reef building animals disappeared forever. These included archaeocyathan sponges and many small shelly fossils. But there is no mention of this. Did the film producers suffer amnesia at this point in the story? Or did that great prankster – the Intelligent Designer – make some big mistakes? If so, why call Her intelligent?

    4. The film makes another common mistake. When Darwin referred to the need for many small steps in evolution, he did not say whether these steps had to be either fast or slow. Small steps can be made very quickly indeed – as with virus evolution today.

    5. The film appears to have been shot within the walls of Cambridge University UK, with interviews taking place in the Sedgwick Museum, or around colleges such as St John’s and King’s College. Some think they perceive some blue highlights around the faces here, suggesting blue-screen shots in which the Cambridge settings have been imposed later. Whether real or false, this gives to the film a wholly spurious authority; rhe impression of a forgery.

    For those interested, some of these evolutionary developments can be followed in my recent book on Darwin’s Dilemma, called Darwin’s Lost World (OUP, 2009), which takes the reader back from the Burgess Shale to the earliest multicellular organisms. Research into this fascinating interval remains wide open and is only just beginning. The Cambrian explosion was a real and entirely natural event, as was the wave of extinctions that followed. What a wonderful world!
  • 10-12-2010, 04:38 AM
    doojie

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
    So, having been shown the evidence you demanded, you now....once again, pick up the goal posts and move. So now your argument is "front-loading"? Good luck with that one.
    Cnance gets trapped in his own logic. If he maintains that god is all-knowing, then he would have been forced to state at the beginning that evolution was within God's foreknowledge. Instead, he tried to prove a contradiction, and we see where all such proofs must end.
  • 10-12-2010, 02:21 AM
    LogicallyYours

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    I could let it go, but that would bother me. Obviously, I have wadded into deep water. I am not a biologist, but that's no excuse. I admit to having less knowledge than needed to debate about Darwin's problem. I have learned much however from my exploration of species. I have reached a conclusion, although tentative, that when God created the universe, He began everything with a full view that it would e v o l v e exacted as intended.
    So, having been shown the evidence you demanded, you now....once again, pick up the goal posts and move. So now your argument is "front-loading"? Good luck with that one.
  • 10-12-2010, 02:11 AM
    Lord_jag

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    I could let it go, but that would bother me. Obviously, I have wadded into deep water. I am not a biologist, but that's no excuse. I admit to having less knowledge than needed to debate about Darwin's problem. I have learned much however from my exploration of species. I have reached a conclusion, although tentative, that when God created the universe, He began everything with a full view that it would e v o l v e exacted as intended.
    So... that jams God into the abiogenesis hole in science... I suppose that's a good place for him to hide until science solves that problem with certainty.

    I guess between that hole and the "who started the big bang" hole, there's still plenty of room for wild speculation and mythology.
  • 10-11-2010, 06:20 PM
    Cnance

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by nomaxim View Post
    That makes even less sense.

    'Phyla' is the the plural of 'Phylum' and is the classification below 'kingdom'.

    Domain
    Kingdom
    Phylum in Zoology, or 'division' in Botany.
    Class
    Order
    Family
    Genus
    Species

    For example;
    A fly, a human, a pea, and a mushroom are all of the domain- Eukarya.

    The kingdoms are different.
    The fly and human are Animalia.
    The pea is Plantae.
    And the mushroom is Fungi.

    There are generally six kingdoms;
    Bacteria
    Archaea
    Protista
    Plantae
    Fungi
    Animalia

    Animalia (Animal Kingdom) includes Snails, Sharks, Tigers, Elephants, Ants, Octopi, Earthworms, Spiders, Clams, Eagles, Tuna, Humans etc..
    They are all animals.

    A Fruit Fly is;
    Domain: Eukarya
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Arthropoda
    Subphylum: Hexapoda
    Class: Insecta
    Subclass: Pterygota
    Order: Diptera
    Suborder: Brachycera
    Family: Drosophilidae
    Subfamily: Drosophilinae
    Genus: Drosophila
    Species: D. melanogaster

    A Human is;
    Domain: Eukarya
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Subphylum: Vertebrata
    Class: Mammalia
    Subclass: Theria
    Order: Primates
    Suborder: Haplorrhini
    Family: Hominidae
    Subfamily: Homininae
    Genus: Homo
    Species: H. sapiens

    A Blue Shark is;
    Domain: Eukarya
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Subphylum: Vertebrata
    Class: Chondrichthyes
    Subclass: Elasmobranchii
    Order: Carcharhiniformes
    Family: Carcharhinidae
    Genus: Prionace
    Species: P. glauca




    Domain: Eukarya
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
    Phylum: Cnidaria
    Subphylum: Medusozoa
    Class: Hydrozoa
    Subclass: Leptolinae
    Order: Anthomedusae
    Suborder: Capitata
    Family: Hydridae
    Genus: HydraSorry, your request to redefine Taxonomy is hereby 'denied'.

    If you have a problem with that then please feel free to file a appeal HERE.
    I could let it go, but that would bother me. Obviously, I have wadded into deep water. I am not a biologist, but that's no excuse. I admit to having less knowledge than needed to debate about Darwin's problem. I have learned much however from my exploration of species. I have reached a conclusion, although tentative, that when God created the universe, He began everything with a full view that it would e v o l v e exacted as intended.
  • 10-11-2010, 03:45 PM
    nomaxim

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    I was not clear in my use of terms. What I meant was mostly fossils characterizing of more complex animals or animal phyla as opposed to other phyla, of which there were a variety of forms in the Cambrian period.
    That makes even less sense.

    'Phyla' is the the plural of 'Phylum' and is the classification below 'kingdom'.

    Domain
    Kingdom
    Phylum in Zoology, or 'division' in Botany.
    Class
    Order
    Family
    Genus
    Species

    For example;
    A fly, a human, a pea, and a mushroom are all of the domain- Eukarya.

    The kingdoms are different.
    The fly and human are Animalia.
    The pea is Plantae.
    And the mushroom is Fungi.

    There are generally six kingdoms;
    Bacteria
    Archaea
    Protista
    Plantae
    Fungi
    Animalia

    Animalia (Animal Kingdom) includes Snails, Sharks, Tigers, Elephants, Ants, Octopi, Earthworms, Spiders, Clams, Eagles, Tuna, Humans etc..
    They are all animals.

    A Fruit Fly is;
    Domain: Eukarya
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Arthropoda
    Subphylum: Hexapoda
    Class: Insecta
    Subclass: Pterygota
    Order: Diptera
    Suborder: Brachycera
    Family: Drosophilidae
    Subfamily: Drosophilinae
    Genus: Drosophila
    Species: D. melanogaster

    A Human is;
    Domain: Eukarya
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Subphylum: Vertebrata
    Class: Mammalia
    Subclass: Theria
    Order: Primates
    Suborder: Haplorrhini
    Family: Hominidae
    Subfamily: Homininae
    Genus: Homo
    Species: H. sapiens

    A Blue Shark is;
    Domain: Eukarya
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Subphylum: Vertebrata
    Class: Chondrichthyes
    Subclass: Elasmobranchii
    Order: Carcharhiniformes
    Family: Carcharhinidae
    Genus: Prionace
    Species: P. glauca




    Domain: Eukarya
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
    Phylum: Cnidaria
    Subphylum: Medusozoa
    Class: Hydrozoa
    Subclass: Leptolinae
    Order: Anthomedusae
    Suborder: Capitata
    Family: Hydridae
    Genus: Hydra
    more complex animals or animal phyla as opposed to other phyla
    Sorry, your request to redefine Taxonomy is hereby 'denied'.

    If you have a problem with that then please feel free to file a appeal HERE.
  • 10-11-2010, 01:19 PM
    Cnance

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by nomaxim View Post


    Worms no not have a skeletal structure. So if worms have no skeleton, how can there be skeletal remains?



    What exactly is a 'skeletal fossil'?

    Do you mean a mold, cast, or true form fossil?

    Do you understand the differences between mold, cast, petrification, and imprint/trace (ichnofossils) fossils?
    I was not clear in my use of terms. What I meant was mostly fossils characterizing of more complex animals or animal phyla as opposed to other phyla, of which there were a variety of forms in the Cambrian period.
  • 10-11-2010, 11:26 AM
    nomaxim

    Re: Paradise lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    There appears to be a good argument for soft skeletal remains of worms, flatworms, etc. preceding the Cambrian period.
    Facepalm Pictures, Images and Photos

    skeletal remains of worms
    Worms no not have a skeletal structure. So if worms have no skeleton, how can there be skeletal remains?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    What I learned is there is no fossil lineage from Precambrian to Cambrian periods based on skeletal fossils.

    .............

    There are no skeletal fossils for species in the Precambrian Period.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Where are those studies confirming skeletal fossils in the Precambrian period?
    What exactly is a 'skeletal fossil'?

    Do you mean a mold, cast, or true form fossil?

    Do you understand the differences between mold, cast, petrification, and imprint/trace (ichnofossils) fossils?
This thread has more than 16 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •