From the Los Angeles Times

Evolution of religious bigotry

The cowardice and intolerance of slapping a Darwin fish on your car bumper.

Jonah Goldberg

April 1, 2008

Ijust watched "Fitna," a 17-minute film by Geert Wilders, head of the Dutch Freedom Party, which takes a hard-line stance against Muslim immigration.

Released on the Internet on Thursday, "Fitna" juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images and speeches from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as "apes and pigs," imams calling for global domination, protesters holding up signs reading "God Bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to Hell" -- these are just some of the powerful images from "Fitna," an Arabic word that means "ordeal."

Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt's grand imam threatened "severe" consequences if the Dutch government didn't ban the film.

Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual motions of theatrical hand-wringing, heaping all of their anger on Wilders for sowing "hatred."

Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.

During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant drinking, dancing and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke nearly no English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.

At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liquor, one of the men came up to me and gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he'd scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.

It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXOYE, which not only means fish but serves as an acronym, in Greek, for "Jesus Christ the Son of God [Is] Savior." Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt with a stick or a finger as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren't alone.

In America, the easiest place to find this ancient symbol is on the back of cars. Recently, however, it seems as if Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you've seen these too. The fish symbol is "updated" with little feet coming off the bottom, and "IXOYE" or "Jesus" is replaced with either "Darwin" or "Evolve."

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. "Namely: It's acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with 'Shalom' written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with 'Usury' written inside the same symbol would be an outrage."

But the most annoying aspect of the Darwin fish is the false bravado it represents. It's a courageous pose without consequence. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap.

Whatever the faults of "Fitna," it ain't no Darwin fish.

Geert Wilders' film could very, very easily get him killed. (He's already guarded around the clock.) It essentially picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.

"Fitna" is certainly provocative, yet it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger.

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

I think the darwin fish is ammusing myself. Why can't you believe in jesus and evolution? Certain animals have evolved, but god might have helped them evolve. And who is he to say what people think when they slap a darwin fish on their bumper? He is already a one way thinker that couldn't possibly fathom what the other half is thinking. Pisses me off sometimes when someone makes a strong statment but does not have the mental ability to consider both sides. I would be happier if he actually asked 20 people with darwin stickers on their car what they meant to them instead of putting words in their mouths. If the muslims are pissed about all the violent video they showed,wouldn't they stop recording themselves cutting poeples heads off, or just quit doing it?

I think the darwin fish is ammusing myself. Why can't you believe in jesus and evolution? Certain animals have evolved, but god might have helped them evolve. And who is he to say what people think when they slap a darwin fish on their bumper? He is already a one way thinker that couldn't possibly fathom what the other half is thinking. Pisses me off sometimes when someone makes a strong statment but does not have the mental ability to consider both sides. I would be happier if he actually asked 20 people with darwin stickers on their car what they meant to them instead of putting words in their mouths. If the muslims are pissed about all the violent video they showed,wouldn't they stop recording themselves cutting poeples heads off, or just quit doing it?The Bible (and therefore Jesus) and Evolution are not complementary, they are in conflict. You can believe whatever you want, however. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that animals have evolved from one species to another. NONE.

The darwin sticker is meant to make a statement to others, as is the muslim beheading video. If it were for their own amusement they would put the sticker where they could see it instead of on the back bumper. That's rather obvious and common sensical; it takes a willful act of denial to see it otherwise.

I see your point fossten, but the evolving I was refering to was losing limbs or developing different defenses, not the one animal to another. Do you think that one species can evolve within it's self?

I just think it's one big world, alot of things are messed up. But god gave us the gift of thinking. So people throw things out their everyday, is it wrong to wonder about them? With tv and the internet theirs alot more information out their. Alot to take in. But I feel lifes to short to be so one sided. Why say the bilbe says so? Why not learn as much as you can and say that you think it was impossible for it to happen. I just don't like people telling me this is this and that is that from a book that is so old. Why can't I believe in a higher being and live a good life? Bible might say that evolution never happened, but in my mind (as messed up as it is) I think their could be evolution and a god. A group of closed minded people will always win over one who imagines. Hell I even think animals have their own train of thought. You think god won't let you into heaven because you thought about if animals could evolve or not? I just can't wrap my head around how some people can be so one sided that they dismiss everything that anyone else says. I'm not saying you, just in general.

And which religion is right? How do you know you picked the right one. They say their are no athiest in a fox hole, but it dosen't say their all christians either.

I see your point fossten, but the evolving I was refering to was losing limbs or developing different defenses, not the one animal to another. Do you think that one species can evolve within it's self?
You're not talking about evolving now, you're talking about mutation. Once again, there is no evidence of this. What would be required would be for DNA to write new code, and that simply has never happened, nor has it been falsified in any way in an evolutionary experiment.

The odds of that happening are the same as the odds of monkeys banging on typewriters for billions of years accidentally typing out the entire Bible word for word.

Mutations that happen nowadays are generally deficiencies that harm the host body rather than augment it. The bottom line is that if you believe in an all powerful God, why would you then think that He did not design the world in all of its beauty and splendor? Your mind tells you that this makes sense, as well as that God has a personal interest in YOU.

I just don't like people telling me this is this and that is that from a book that is so old.
This is an incredibly honest thing to say. I'm impressed. Most evolutionists (not referring to you) won't admit that they want to live their own lives.

It's interesting because evolution, if true, wipes out the belief that sin causes death, which the Bible teaches. If sin does not cause death, but evolution happened and death came before thinking, reasoning man, then there are no consequences for sin.

Your statement is profound because it captures the real reason people want to believe in evolution - they want to live their own lives and not be told what to do by some old, white-bearded guy living in the clouds with a bunch of angels strumming harps.

The proof in what I say manifests itself whenever I start quoting the Bible. People just don't like being told about their sin. People love their sin, they cherish it, and they want to hang on to it. They want to believe themselves to be good people. Sadly, the Bible tells us differently. It tells us that the best we can do is just filthy rags compared to God. (Isaiah 64:6)

I see your point fossten, but the evolving I was refering to was losing limbs or developing different defenses, not the one animal to another. Do you think that one species can evolve within it's self?

Can one speices evolve within itself? No, according to Darwin. Your use of the term "evolve" is sloppy. What you are discribing is adaptation (according to darwin), not evolution. Darwinian evolution has never been shown to happen. Adaptation is a different matter.


BTW, good article Fossten. You should pick up Goldberg's book, you would like it.

Evolution vs. creation aside, the article makes a good point that I've often felt. Why are honest, humble Christians reviled in our own country? Yet hate-filled, murderous Muslims get a free pass? I could understand if there were wide-spread rallies where thousands of Christians chanted "death to Islam" or something to that nature. But sadly, most people do not personally know someone who is a faithful Christian in words and deeds. The world is filled with hypocrites of all sorts, and Christianity certainly has it's share.

I don't know what it's like to live in fear because I believe in Jesus, like that man in Turkey. But I do understand the comfort of knowing that I'm not alone.

http://jeffreykishner.com/images/jesusfish.jpg

I am not a evolutionist by any means, nore a bible thumper. I like to come to conclusions myself. Free will is all I have. The simplest way for me to describe it is in math class the teacher teaches you how to do math. Everything is either right or its wrong. 2+2 equals what? It equals 4. No matter how you add it up it equals 4. If 4 is not the answer then it is wrong. In english class the teacher teaches you english out of a book. It is decided to be right or wrong on the teachers judgement. Their is no gray area in math, and english class is nothing but a grey area dependent on someones views that they interpreted from someone elses book. I can put religion and evelution into a equation for you a+x=y. What is y? I don't know. The sum of a and x? yes but then what is y? I guess y stands for what ever you think it does and you can fill in a and x from their. I belive in god, but I will not blindlessly follow a religion. Heck god might talk to me tonight in my sleep and I'll wake up a new man, then again I might be out in the yard working tomorrow and see some deer pop a 4 eyed winged creature out of its ass. I don't have all the answers but I will keep looking.

And as far as muslims shedding blood. I think the christians have had more than their fair share. So if you belive in jesus you have no fear? I've seen some real god fearing men have the worst and I mean absolute worst things that can happen, happen. I can say with out a doubt, somethings will set you back on your ass and leave you breathless and in doubt and you will wake up questioning why it happened.

And for the evolution. If I took you to africa and showed you one fish that had little stick legs, then took you to the amazon and showed you the same fish with normal pectoral fins and asked you what happed you would say the one in africa adapted and I would say it evolved. Then you would say thats not evelution according to darwin thats adaptation. I would say yes that fish adapted to its conditions but its babies will have the stick legs also so its spiecies has evolved. And on the way home we would not wonder about if their is a god, we would just think, hey thats cool that fish grew some stick legs to walk from mud puddle to mud puddle.

If I took you to africa and showed you one fish that had little stick legs, then took you to the amazon and showed you the same fish with normal pectoral fins and asked you what happed you would say the one in africa adapted and I would say it evolved.

...And you would be wrong. There is no gray area between adaptation and evolution (as spelled out by Darwin), as you are trying to suggest. It is a matter of a correct and incorrect understanding of the terms. To use your analogy; (2+2=5) vs. (2+2=4). One is factually accurate and one isn't.

I would say yes that fish adapted to its conditions but its babies will have the stick legs also so its spiecies has evolved.

...And you have just proven that you have no clue what evolution is, as defined by Darwin. Darwinian evolution is what is being discussed in this thread; you need to know what you are talking about, so I will help you out here...

The theory of evolution, as defined by Darwin, is a three step process:

1: Random mutation of desirable attributes

2: Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" creatures (survival of the fittests)

3: Leading to the creation of a new species

Adaptation and Darwinian evolution are totally different things. Evolution, as defined by Darwin is as I described above. Evolution can have many different meanings; the most basic being "change over time". In this sense evolution, and adaptation are the same thing and no one questions this evolution. Biological evolution has additional meaning. Some biologists define biological evolution as, "a change is gene frequences over generations." My genes are different from my parents and my childrens genes will be different from mine. Again, this definition of biological evolution is uncontroversial. Charles Darwin didn't use the term biological evolution, but instead, "decent with modification." In a limited sense, this is even uncontroversial. It happens all the time within existing species; breeding race horses, breeding prize winning dogs, ect. Darwin defined evolution very specifically, and that definition is what is controversial.

Evolution isn't selective breeding. Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over the course of many years. In fact, evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwin's theory says we get new species, not a taller version of the same one. Evolution is not proved by genetic similarities among living things, the heritability of characteristics, or the age of the Earth.

Dawinists exploit the many meanings of "evolution" to distract critics. Eugenie Scott suggests: "define evolution as an issue of the history of the planet: as the way we try to understand change through time. The present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on...I have used this approach at the college level". Scott says that once she gets agreement on that idea, she gradually introduces them to "the Big Idea", that all species are related through descent from a common ancestor. "Darwin called this 'descent with modification' and it is still the best definition of evolution we can use." This underhanded tactic is known as "equivocation"; changing the meaning of the term in the middle of an argument.

I was refering to (The most basic being "change over time". In this sense evolution, and adaptation are the same thing and no one questions this evolution) not the people came from monkey's one.

I know I don't have the knowledge or big vocabulary like you guys do. I've learned in a different direction. Anytime I'm wrong just post up like you did and I'll learn from it.

I'm gonna go back to the car forums now

I was refering to (The most basic being "change over time". In this sense evolution, and adaptation are the same thing and no one questions this evolution) not the people came from monkey's one.

Then you are not talking about the type of evolution being discussed in this thread.

You are correct, I was not. I appoligize.

the type of evolution being talked about here is the type which happens continuously through extended history of the earth. said to populate the earth with new species. evolutionary ideas do have a strong case when looked at as the driving force of species creation after mass extinctions in geological and fossil history on the planet.

a mass extinction is the end of certain species as they no longer become recorded in future levels of fossils but are recorded within a previous fossil time boundary. after an extinction time boundary, fossils of new species spring up and flourish until the next extinction.

http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/extincmenu.html
or here, where you can see the idea of another extinction taking place
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

of course evolution doesn't happen in a short time boundary. it happens over tens of thousands to millions of years, which is why it is hard to fathom. breeding of dogs as a used correlation has happened on a relatively short timescale, a few thousand years, to bring us the many breeds we have today, coming from the lineage of the wolf. since this hasn't produced a new species, just a larger variation of the same species, it is dismissed as proof.

evolution as yet is the only believable answer to the diversity of life that comes before and after mass extinctions, where numbers of species present before the extinction permanently disappear and species that are not a part of the fossil record before the extinction become a part of the fossil record after the extinction time boundary. "god" beliefs still have no answer to this, as palaeontology didn't exist until recently.

back to fosstens article. the author fails to realize which side of the world he is on. north american society is open for new and/or different ideals. if we were bound by more recent ancient european ideals, the evolve sticker would get you killed. this is the problem with extreme muslims. there is no free ideals. what the book says is all you can believe. the evolve sticker in north america merely takes a stance against majority thinking, and the god ideal here is christianity. probably more of a stance as christian ideals seem to be coming even more narrow minded and extreme lately and less tolerant to open ideals.
discoveries and new ways of thinking have opened us up to different thought of how things work without a supernatural cause to explain it. there is an order of how things work. yet it has only been recently that these ideals could be explored without religious persecution.(even in christianity).

many symbols are borrowed from other sources. the fish symbol has many pre-christian uses as well.
"The pre-Christian history of the fish symbol:
The fish symbol has been used for millennia worldwide as a religious symbol associated with the Pagan Great Mother Goddess. It is the outline of her vulva. The fish symbol was often drawn by overlapping two very thin crescent moons. One represented the crescent shortly before the new moon; the other shortly after, when the moon is just visible. The Moon is the heavenly body that has long been associated with the Goddess, just as the sun is a symbol of the God.

The link between the Goddess and fish was found in various areas of the ancient world:

In China, Great Mother Kwan-yin often portrayed in the shape of a fish
In India, the Goddess Kali was called the "fish-eyed one"
In Egypt, Isis was called the Great Fish of the Abyss
In Greece the Greek word "delphos" meant both fish and womb. The word is derived from the location of the ancient Oracle at Delphi who worshipped the original fish goddess, Themis. The later fish Goddess, Aphrodite Salacia, was worshipped by her followers on her sacred day, Friday. They ate fish and engaging in orgies. From her name comes the English word "salacious" which means lustful or obscene. Also from her name comes the name of our fourth month, April. In later centuries, the Christian church adsorbed this tradition by requiring the faithful to eat fish on Friday - a tradition that was only recently abandoned.
In ancient Rome Friday is called "dies veneris" or Day of Venus, the Pagan Goddess of Love.
Throughout the Mediterranean, mystery religions used fish, wine and bread for their sacramental meal.
In Scandinavia, the Great Goddess was named Freya; fish were eaten in her honor. The 6th day of the week was named "Friday" after her.
In the Middle East, the Great Goddess of Ephesus was portrayed as a woman with a fish amulet over her genitals.

The fish symbol "was so revered throughout the Roman empire that Christian authorities insisted on taking it over, with extensive revision of myths to deny its earlier female-genital meanings...Sometimes the Christ child was portrayed inside the vesica, which was superimposed on Mary's belly and obviously represented her womb, just as in the ancient symbolism of the Goddess." 4 Another author writes: "The fish headdress of the priests of Ea [a Sumero-Semitic God] later became the miter of the Christian bishops." 5

The symbol itself, the eating of fish on Friday and the association of the symbol with deity were all taken over by the early Church from Pagan sources. Only the sexual component was deleted. "

i wouldn't get too bent over it. the fish symbol could be argued to have been stolen from other sources pre- christianity.
then there is an arguement that jesus was also born of the astrological time coinciding with the age of pisces, and the fish symbol is meant to represent this originally. the dawn of the new age. what it came to mean today is not necessarily it's beginnings.
in the meantime, i'll download fitna and have a look at it myself.

hrmwrm, if you're going to c/p, please cite/link your sources. Thanks.

Interesting that you acknowledge that Christianity is majority thinking. Why, then, are public schools filled with evolutionary textbooks and why have the Bible and prayer been kicked out? Seems like the minority elites are ruling the majority. That seems inappropriate.

By the way, your source is incorrect. The ICTHUS is an acronym as the article described. Nothing more. Your attempt to smear it by associating it with other pagan religions is unconvincing.

The point of the article is of course being deliberately missed by you. There is tolerance of everything today EXCEPT Christianity, which is regularly and routinely mocked and denigrated. Christianity has been kicked out of virtually every public place in this country. Even "Christmas" has been squashed. This is not up for dispute. Christians are being told they must tolerate homosexual "lifestyles" and every other sin under the sun, and yet Christians are not tolerated. If a Christian shows up at a gay pride march and witnesses to the marchers, he is arrested and charged with hate speech (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54235). But vice versa, nothing happens.

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=44944


Wednesday, April 02, 2008



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON CAPITOL HILL
Congressional 'hate crimes' plan dropped – for now

But activist victimized by attack under state rules remains wary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 07, 2007
1:00 am Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily.com

An amendment that would have set up new federal law to apply penalties for politically incorrect "thoughts" under a "hate crimes" plan has been stripped from a defense spending authorization bill, delaying at least for now the application of such punishments.

But an activist who has suffered because of the application of such a plan – at the state level – says Americans need to remain wary.

The amendment was stripped yesterday from a $500 billion defense reauthorization plan that is expected soon to be forwarded to President Bush.

According to the Congressional Quarterly, members of the Senate serving on a conference committee dropped their demand for the hate-crimes provision, "paving the way for the conference report to be signed."

The amendment would have expanded hate-crime laws that now address race to include crimes committed against anyone in new special classes based on their gender or sexual orientation.

The amendment originally had been approved by the House as a stand-alone measure, and was added to the Senate defense spending bill in September, but the White House had threatened a veto.

Michael Marcavage, of Repent America, says his organization has members who were jailed for proclaiming their Christian beliefs on public streets in Philadelphia, because of state regulations similar to the federal proposal.

"It's extraordinarily important that it has been removed from the defense reauthorization bill," he told WND. "But we know that the homosexual lobby is extraordinarily aggressive when it comes to obtaining special protections. That's exactly what this is."

"We must be very vigilant as to what their next move is going to be. They're not going to go away," he said.

"I do see a lot of people starting to understand exactly what hate crimes legislation can do, when you have a prosecutor with an agenda. That's what we saw in Philadelphia," he said.

It was then, in 2004, that a number of members of his organization chose to proclaim their biblically based belief that homosexuality is wrong at a city-sponsored "gay" fest in Philadelphia. They were arrested and jailed, even threatened with prison sentences decades long, for proclaiming their beliefs.

He said Pennsylvania lawmakers had been told when they approved the state's hate crimes plan in 2002 that it wouldn't really be applied unless "there was blood in the streets."

"Strategically, they can certainly find a way to bring a charge [if they choose]," he said.

"There is a movement in America to criminalize Christians for their beliefs. We're seeing it more and more every day," he said.

It is within the realm of future possibilities that even China, with its aggressive crackdowns on Christians, eventually could be a "safe haven" for Christians should hate crimes laws ever become common in the U.S., he said.

"It's moving quickly in that direction," he said, citing a separate plan in Congress to give "gays" special rights in employment, and another move to silence conservative radio talk shows.

"The mindset behind this legislation is to criminalize Christians," he said.

Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, said there may be an attempt to revive the plan. "But its rejection by conference greatly increases the likelihood that we can defeated it again – if lovers of freedom continue to protest loudly."

Earlier this week, the the Family Research Council had issued an alert about the pending plan, suggesting constituents call members of Congress.

"Tell them it should be removed because the provision is not germane to the national defense of this country. Most importantly, tell them that the provision should be removed because it runs counter to our country's bedrock principles of free speech and thought."

As WND has reported, the plan was feared by critics as a means to target Christians and to demolish both freedom of speech and religion in the United States. It would allow enhanced prosecution for crimes motivated by "hate," including the perception of gender or gender identity.

The White House has concluded such legislation is "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable."

The White House said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the violence addressed by the new federal crime defined in the bill, and many carry stricter penalties than the proposed language.

But FRC said the fine print of the plan was alarming.

"The definition is broadened to include sexual orientation among the protected classes, elevating sexual attraction to the status of race and creed. Those who can be found culpable have also been expanded to include not only those who commit the crime but those who may have unknowingly 'inspired' those actions. For example, a pastor can be considered legally culpable if he preaches against the homosexual agenda and a member of his congregation subsequently commits a crime against a homosexual. Thus, the act against the homosexual is considered a crime, as it should be, but so also is the thought against the agenda or conduct," the organization said.

Former White House insider Chuck Colson, in his Breakpoint commentary, has called it a "Thought Crimes" plan.

"This bill is not about hate. It's not even about crime. It's about outlawing peaceful speech – speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong," he said.

WND columnist Janet Folger earlier warned in a commentary called "Pastors: Act now or prepare for jail," that in New Hampshire, a crime that typically carries a sentence of 3 1/2 years was "enhanced" to 30 years because a robber shouted an anti-homosexual name at his victim.

the type of evolution being talked about here is the type which happens continuously through extended history of the earth.

Which "type" of evolution is that? I am really not sure if you are agreeing with me or not? The "type" of evolution being discussed in the article in the opening post (and thus the form of evolution being discussed here) is darwinian evolution. That is the only one that is really questionable, as it attempts to explain the origin of species, not the changes in a species.

In defending evolution in a debate, one doesn't get to pick which definition of evolution they get to apply. They are arguing the definition in question, which is always Darwins, as that is the only one really in question. To try and redefine it, or change it to one more accepted, is an underhanded arguing tactic, as mentioned in my previous post; equivocation.

The type of evolution being debated here is Darwinian. If you are not arguing on that definition, then your arguments are unneccessary and irrelevant to this thread.

I assume you are arguing for Darwinian evolution.

breeding of dogs as a used correlation has happened on a relatively short timescale, a few thousand years, to bring us the many breeds we have today, coming from the lineage of the wolf. since this hasn't produced a new species, just a larger variation of the same species, it is dismissed as proof.


It is dismissed because it isn't proof of evolution, just adaptation. By that quotes own admission, the process of wolfs becoming dogs has not produced a new species. Producing a new species is the definition of evolution, so it is not proof. That is like saying owning a car is proof that you own a house.

Using tangetial facts doesn't say anything about evolution, and is a very sloppy argument.


evolution as yet is the only believable answer to the diversity of life that comes before and after mass extinctions, where numbers of species present before the extinction permanently disappear and species that are not a part of the fossil record before the extinction become a part of the fossil record after the extinction time boundary. "god" beliefs still have no answer to this, as palaeontology didn't exist until recently.

Actually no. You, or whatever source you are citing here, is turning it 180 degrees, logically. They say, since we have a wide aray of species present today that have come about since the last mass extinction, that is proof of evolution.What?! That makes no since. The fact that we have a wide aray of species present today that came about since the last mass extenction suggests some sort of creation, or intellegent design, not evolution. What would they have "evolved" from? Your post cites how try evolution takes a very, very long time (the dog example), so how would a gigantic number of species have evolved from such a small number of species in such a (relatively) short time?

Your post cites how try evolution takes a very, very long time (the dog example), so how would a gigantic number of species have evolved from such a small number of species in such a (relatively) short time?Very good. Evolutionists always have trouble reconciling the "changes over time" with the so-called Cambrian Explosion. It's a contradiction that has no refuge.

A couple of good opinion pieces about the fish symbol:

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/fish/fish.html

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/fishsymbol.html

i was actually saying the breeding of dogs isn't a valid arguement. sorry that wasn't clear. there are 8 recorded mass extinctions periods in my first source. pre-cambrian and verdian had 1 extinction each. cambrian had 4 scattered throughout it's time relation. ordivician had the second most largest extinction.

sorry, wrong button. i'll continue. devonian was next. still through these, marine life is affected. true land plants are just starting to appear in this time period. permian is next. the largest mass extinction ever recorded happened in this period. this is where the rise of terrestial vertebrates occur. then end cretaceous. end of the dinosaurs. then the holocene, which is relating to the last 10,000 years which is thought to be influenced by man. this last is questionable, as it will take quite some time to see the outcome as fact or fiction.

the sudden so- called cambrian explosion is based on available fossils. it doesn't mean that there may not have been more fossils in the older periods. their fossils may not have been preserved as well. this explosion is also over millions of years. it isn't over thousands of years. there is nothing surprising in it. look here
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

heres a little more intense view of the cambrian.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm

although this link is more along fosstens lines.
http://www.learnthebible.org/creation_science_cambrian_explosion_disproves_evol ution.htm
if you read, he BELIEVES it is proof.
i like this one actually.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html

The point of the article is of course being deliberately missed by you. There is tolerance of everything today EXCEPT Christianity, which is regularly and routinely mocked and denigrated. Christianity has been kicked out of virtually every public place in this country. Even "Christmas" has been squashed. This is not up for dispute. Christians are being told they must tolerate homosexual "lifestyles" and every other sin under the sun, and yet Christians are not tolerated. If a Christian shows up at a gay pride march and witnesses to the marchers, he is arrested and charged with hate speech (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54235). But vice versa, nothing happens.

i guess it comes down to this. the state is tolerant of peoples belief systems, but it won't be a party to furthering superstition. if people wish to believe in
whatever, there are places better suited than the public. these are the freedoms brought by the "christian" founders. to let the christian ideal of creation into public, then you must entertain all ideals of creation. evolution is the only one not of superstitious founding. it may not be 100% accurate, as it has only been studied for a short time. but it is based upon sound natural laws. to put christianity back in public schooling, then all superstition must be entertained due to ethnic and cultural diversity. islam, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, even the many ideals of first nations people, and etc. it has to be looked at from a global view. and you can imagine what a headache this would be.

and it just seems that all is tolerated except christianity to you, because those are the things you pick out most. how do you feel towards me for being atheist? those are the things i have to deal with on occasion as well. as for your link, why would a bunch of nice christians want to rain down on a gay parade? and you wish to talk about intolerance? everybody is born in these countries with the same rights. (north america) you have the right of your belief, yet the gays don't have the right because of your beliefs?(not specifically you, you know what i mean?) it's funny how religions believe they are tolerant, but are usually less than excepting of progressive measures when they conflict with their belief. would you like the world of christianity to be like the world of islam? all christian, nothing else tolerated. if i remember history, that was the reason for distancing this continent from europe.

and it just seems that all is tolerated except christianity to you, because those are the things you pick out most. how do you feel towards me for being atheist? those are the things i have to deal with on occasion as well. as for your link, why would a bunch of nice christians want to rain down on a gay parade? and you wish to talk about intolerance? everybody is born in these countries with the same rights. (north america) you have the right of your belief, yet the gays don't have the right because of your beliefs?(not specifically you, you know what i mean?) it's funny how religions believe they are tolerant, but are usually less than excepting of progressive measures when they conflict with their belief. would you like the world of christianity to be like the world of islam? all christian, nothing else tolerated. if i remember history, that was the reason for distancing this continent from europe.Well as usual you have everything turned around backwards and upside down. If we all have the same rights, then the Christians should not have been jailed, or the gays should also have been jailed. There was no equality of rights in that situation. Yes, the gays can say what they want, but so can the Christians. See? Equal. Same.

Tolerance can only go so far with religions. Why should a religion be forced to openly accept and endorse a lifestyle which its doctrines say is wrong? That is silly. What if someone's lifestyle involved sacrificing babies? Should a religion accept that behavior? What about polygamy? Should the Baptists accept the Mormons' beliefs and allow multiple marriages? Should a Christian pastor allow a NAMBLA member to be his children's church minister? This is absurd.

Please feel free to disprove the obvious claim that gays are protected and that Christians are being jailed for exercising their free speech. I can produce five articles supporting my position for every one that you find supporting yours.

As far as my feelings about you being an atheist, they are irrelevant. I do not believe you should be jailed for speaking your mind in public, and to date that is the difference between Christians and non Christians, as my article demonstrates. I do not believe you should be squashed from believing in evolution or teaching your kids about it. I do not believe that if a student wants to do a paper on evolution that he should be prevented from doing so. However - the woefully inadequate government school system systematically pushes God out of the schoolroom to the extent that students are punished for even mentioning God or an alternative explanation for the origin of life.

You really need to stop with the invective and ad hominem rhetoric. Calling someone else's beliefs "superstition" is akin to me calling athiests "freaking idiot nutjobs." If you're not going to offer PROOF of your claims of superstition, then please stop using such language. Opinion pieces do not hold up as proof. Your rhetoric doesn't foster a healthy, productive discussion, but rather lets me know that you are a closed-minded, babbling, intolerant fool because you do not have any respect for the people with whom you are discussing this subject. In short, if you can't do this respectfully without demeaning another's beliefs or opinions, then we are finished here.

i guess it comes down to this. the state is tolerant of peoples belief systems, but it won't be a party to furthering superstition. if people wish to believe in
whatever, there are places better suited than the public. these are the freedoms brought by the "christian" founders. to let the christian ideal of creation into public, then you must entertain all ideals of creation.

Where are you getting that?! There is no basis for that in the constitution. Where does your claim come from that the founders didn't want the state to "be a party to furthering superstition", and they thought "if people wish to believe in whatever [biblical creation?], there are places better suited than the public."? what is it's textual foundation?


evolution is the only one not of superstitious founding. it may not be 100% accurate, as it has only been studied for a short time. but it is based upon sound natural laws.

Interesting that you cite natural laws in this discussion, as the philosophical natural laws/rights this country was founded on were inherently recognized as coming from our creator God). :D


to put christianity back in public schooling, then all superstition must be entertained due to ethnic and cultural diversity. islam, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, even the many ideals of first nations people, and etc. it has to be looked at from a global view. and you can imagine what a headache this would be.

Why is that? Christianity is strongly mixed in with the traditions of this nation. Christianity specifically was given a special place by many of the Framers, and was the official religion (different denominations) of many states through the founding of this country.

Ethnic and cultural diversity only has a basis in political correctness; there is no constitutional basis for it, and exceedingly questionable legal basis for it, at best. It is in no way a requirement in the classroom. It does not provide a logical justification for looking at all other religious posibilities.

as for your link, why would a bunch of nice christians want to rain down on a gay parade? and you wish to talk about intolerance? everybody is born in these countries with the same rights. (north america) you have the right of your belief, yet the gays don't have the right because of your beliefs?(not specifically you, you know what i mean?)

Comparing religion (Christians) and gays is apples and oranges. Religion is specifically protected in the constitution, gays are not. "Protected classes" is inherently institutionalizing discrimination, which is the point of the article. The whole gay this isn't a "belief" like religion, that is a mischaracterization. Homosexuality is arguably a behaviorial choice, while Christianity is a religion (spiritual belief). Christianity views homosexuality as an act that is sinful (made by choice) and thus protest against it, as is their constitutional right under both the Free Speech, and Free [religious] Exercise parts of the 1st amendment. the Free Exercise Clause has no application to the gay community. So if anyone should be jailed, the justification for jailing gays is stronger then jailing Christians (though there really is no justification either way, really).

i was actually saying the breeding of dogs isn't a valid arguement.

I understand that. I was taking the logic in the argument you made and applying it to the bigger argument.

the sudden so- called cambrian explosion is based on available fossils. it doesn't mean that there may not have been more fossils in the older periods. their fossils may not have been preserved as well. this explosion is also over millions of years. it isn't over thousands of years. there is nothing surprising in it.

Yeah but an "explosion of diversity" (as they spell out in the fossilmuseum.net article) goes against evolution. Evolution is slow and would in no way "explode". Going from the relatively small number of species to a huge number of species, as depected in the Cambrian explosion, would have to suggest that the appearance of new species was somehow guided, if nothing else then to guide evolution and take out the trial and error aspect of it.

a little something from my last link
"Whereas a literal interpretation of the Cambrian fossil record requires the near-simultaneous, ‘late arrival’ of nearly all metazoan phyla, recent genetic evidence reveals a different pattern, sometimes known as the ‘slow burn’ or ‘early arrival’ hypothesis. Age estimates derived from calibrated gene divergence studies tend to vary considerably today – the science is new – but a consistent pattern emerges, nevertheless. These studies all conclude that the major animal groups became separated from one another hundreds of millions of years before the Cambrian. Some studies (e.g. the classic Wray et al. 1996) place the age of the primary division of animals into protostomes and deuterostomes at around 1,200 Ma – much more than twice the age of the Cambrian Explosion."
"Early-Arrival Models
Darwin himself preferred the early-arrival explanation, noting that "before the lowest Silurian [the Cambrian system had not yet been recognised] stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures" (Darwin 1859, p. 307).

Today we might regard Darwin’s views as wonderfully prescient, for numerous Precambrian fossils have now indeed been collected, and modern techniques – impossible in Darwin’s day – such as ‘molecular clock’ studies, strongly indicate metazoan evolutionary events having occurred deep within the Precambrian.
There can be little doubt, on the basis of trace evidence alone, that bilaterian metazoans existed in the Vendian, and possibly early in the Vendian. Although some traces are simple, rather featureless, winding trails, "others display transverse rugae and contain pellets that can be interpreted as of fecal origin. The bilaterian nature of these traces is not in dispute. Furthermore, such traces must have been made by worms, some of which had lengths measured in centimetres, with through guts, which were capable of displacing sediment during some form of peristaltic locomotion, implying a system of body wall muscles antagonized by a hydrostatic skeleton. Such worms are more complex than flatworms, which cannot create such trails and do not leave fecal strings" (Valentine 1995, p. 90). "
not necessarily did the cambrian have an explosion. at first interpretation, this is how it seems. some seem to be a carry over of existing forms.

"An entirely independent line of study is reported in Lieberman 2003. Here, the results of a phylogenetic biogeographic analysis of Early Cambrian olenellid trilobites are calibrated by a tectonic event, the breakup of Pannotia at 600 to 550 Ma, providing evidence that "trilobites likely had evolved and begun to diversify minimally by between 550 to 600 Ma" (Lieberman 2003, p. 231).

In preserving evidence of bilaterians, the Vendian record provides constraints on the protostome-deuterostome (P-D) divergence. If Kimberella is indeed a mollusc, as suggested by Fedonkin & Waggoner 1997, or certain trace fossils recorded from the Ediacara Hills and Zimnie Gory are correctly interpreted as radula scratches, we have evidence for derived protostomes at 555 Ma. Similarly, if Arkarua adami (from the Pound Subgroup, South Australia; Gehling 1987) is correctly interpreted as an echinoderm, we have evidence for a derived deuterostome of similar age. In either case, it follows that the protostome-deuterostome split must have occurred well before 555 Ma, which is consistent with most ‘molecular clock’ studies.
The latter, however, mostly favour a P-D split far deeper in the Precambrian: some as early as 1,200 Ma (table 1). If correct, then the Cambrian explosion is clearly an artefact. "

"Conclusion
The abrupt entry of a diverse and highly derived fauna into the fossil record, during the brief Tommotian and Atdabanian ages of the Early Cambrian, has long been recognised and is now widely known to paleontologists and laymen alike, as the ‘Cambrian Explosion.’ However, despite the rapid proliferation of evolutionary novelties which undoubtedly occurred at this time, at least some of the phenomenon is attributable to the acquisition of preservational characteristics – ‘hard parts’ – and multiple lines of evidence reveal that life was already highly diversified prior to the Tommotian.

It is to be expected that morphologically diversity should lag behind genetic diversity. This is especially true of organisms which are morphologically simple to begin with. Bacteria and Archaea look very much alike and, prior to genetic sequencing, they were classified together even though their genes now tell us they are as different as elephants and pond scum – maybe more so.
This expectation is borne out by the generally much greater ages attributed to the divergences of all megascopic lineages by molecular clock methods than is revealed by the fossil record.
Representatives of different high level taxa diverge from one another very early in ontogeny. It is at least intuitively reasonable that the ancestral organisms which experienced the ‘homologous’ phylogenetic divergences, were very simple. For example, the last common protostome-deuterostome ancestor is unlikely to have been a morphologically complex animal. Moreover, once one of these ‘early’ mutations has occurred, it is soon ‘frozen’ in by subsequent internal coadaptation.
These realisations permit us to reconcile diverse observations, such as:
The very early evolution of life generally (> 3,500 Ma), and eukaryote life in particular (> 1,200 Ma);

Molecular and microfossil evidence for an ancient (~ 1,000 Ma) diversification of eukaryotes;

Our failure to find convincing fossil evidence of advanced, megascopic eukaryotes, especially animals, until after ~600 Ma;

The apparently rapid origin of very many crown group metazoans in the ~35 million year interval from ~565 Ma to ~530 Ma (the misnamed Cambrian Explosion);

The observation that few fundamentally new metazoan body plans (some would say none) have arisen since. "

give science time. they'll dig deeper and find more answers. your view of the explosion is only one interpretation. evidence exists otherwise.

fossten, if it's allowable in the law, yes, you should have to tolerate it. i tolerate religion, which is against my ideals. but it's allowed by law. and according to your article, the gays had a permit to hold their festival. the finale may have been wrong, but as i said, what was a group of christians doing at a gay parade?. i'm sure they weren't there for the festivities. some of your examples of toleration are just wrong. infanticide is illegal. and i wouldn't be so sure there isn't already a minister somewhere who is a nambla member. but that's life.

your feelings towards me as an atheist was to try and create the ideal to you of tolerance. to not believe is also against your teachings, but you accept it apparently. i'm not saying the christians should have been jailed, but the gays were within their right, permitted by the city, to hold their gathering. christians being there had nothing to do with free speech, but discrimination. the country has strong laws against it nowadays. rights for identifiable minorities has been going on for a long time, and will continue. accept it or accept the consequences for trying to fight against it.

i was actually saying the breeding of dogs isn't a valid arguement. sorry that wasn't clear. there are 8 recorded mass extinctions periods in my first source. pre-cambrian and verdian had 1 extinction each. cambrian had 4 scattered throughout it's time relation. ordivician had the second most largest extinction.

One of your 'mass extinctions' has now been rejected by scientists. I guess it's back to the drawing board. But I'll keep sticking with my superstition. :rolleyes:

Scientists Report Doubts Over Key Theory of Evolutionary Extinction

by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Researchers have recently “ruled out a hypothesis” that has been taught as dogma in schools, colleges and universities worldwide: the cause of the Permian extinction, allegedly “the mother of all mass extinctions.”

Geologists and paleontologists state in a recent article in Nature Geoscience that at the end of the Permian era—which they calculate occurred some 250 million years ago—“95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were wiped out.” Called the “Great Dying” by some researchers, it is difficult not to think of a cataclysmic event, such as a global flood (Genesis 6 – 9), when reading of such massive destruction.

Regardless, evolutionary scientists have taught for decades that this Permian extinction event was precipitated by gradual oxygen starvation of the world’s oceans. This supposedly led to a massive die-out of marine life due to “clouds of hydrogen sulphide” rising from the seas.

Now many scientists are stymied as to what caused this devastating event, but Flood geologists have an idea: massive flooding, possible asteroid activity, and large-scale volcanism. History records such a catastrophic event in Genesis 7:11.

Indeed, many scientists are coming closer to the truth when they rule out clouds of hydrogen sulphide and look approvingly at “an impact, or series of impacts, by an asteroid.” Granted, this is not the Flood, but such bombardments probably did occur at this time. In fact, many geologists now agree with creation scientists that earth did experience a worldwide cataclysmic event. Take note of this shift from a position that does not fit the facts to a more reasonable scientific understanding—sudden cataclysm(s) such as asteroids or even a “fierce period of volcanism,” which happens to fit historical accounts found in the biblical record.

Of course, researchers in creation science continue to follow the evidence where it leads, and little by little, Darwinian scientists committed to evolutionary dogma are beginning to confirm what we’ve been stating all along.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sherwin is Science Editor

Source: http://www.physorg.com/news125509388.html

fossten, if it's allowable in the law, yes, you should have to tolerate it.

That's an overly simplified statement, that is grossly inaccurate


christians being there had nothing to do with free speech, but discrimination.

More distortion. Christians have ever right to be there, they have free speech rights as well. You don't get to spin it so they don't. that is a very sloppy argument.

Discrimination is also a form of free speech. You can't outlaw that.

the country has strong laws against it nowadays.


dispite your distortion, you actually hit on the point of the article. Only acts should be criminalized, not thoughts. If I have a discriminatory view, that is my perogative and not the governments business. There is a movement in this country to criminalize thought that is successful in some areas, as noted in the article.


rights for identifiable minorities has been going on for a long time, and will continue. accept it or accept the consequences for trying to fight against it.

Depends on the minority, and depends on what type of right. I am left handed, which is a minority. no special laws for me. and NO minority should EVER be a "protected class". Minorities also need to be genetically so, in nature. That is highly questionable in the gay community. It is very likely a behavioral thing; a lifestyle choice. If you choose to become a minority, you are not entitled to any special rights.

Whereas a literal interpretation of the Cambrian fossil record requires the near-simultaneous, ‘late arrival’ of nearly all metazoan phyla, recent genetic evidence reveals a different pattern, sometimes known as the ‘slow burn’ or ‘early arrival’ hypothesis.

Genetics says nothing about evolution, only adaptation...

Age estimates derived from calibrated gene divergence studies tend to vary considerably today – the science is new – but a consistent pattern emerges, nevertheless.

Ahh, so a new science built around estimates is the basis for the evidence here?! The evidence is getting more and more shaky...

Today we might regard Darwin’s views as wonderfully prescient, for numerous Precambrian fossils have now indeed been collected, and modern techniques – impossible in Darwin’s day – such as ‘molecular clock’ studies, strongly indicate metazoan evolutionary events having occurred deep within the Precambrian.

So, the Cambrian Explosion, which one of your sources talks about, didn't happen? You are contradicting yourself, it seems...

There can be little doubt, on the basis of trace evidence alone, that bilaterian metazoans existed in the Vendian, and possibly early in the Vendian.

Conclusive evidence isn't based on "trace evidence alone"

Although some traces are simple, rather featureless, winding trails, "others display transverse rugae and contain pellets that can be interpreted as of fecal origin.

They are basing this on poop! They find fossilized poop, in which most, if not all genetic material has degraded to the point of being useless, if it is even still present.

This post is becoming less credible as conclusive proof of evolution as you move through it...


The bilaterian nature of these traces is not in dispute.

...suggesting less diversity

Furthermore, such traces must have been made by worms, some of which had lengths measured in centimetres, with through guts, which were capable of displacing sediment during some form of peristaltic locomotion, implying a system of body wall muscles antagonized by a hydrostatic skeleton

Also suggesting even less diversity as well as suggesting something other then evolution, as they are made by worms, which are all the same species. This is proving adaptation, not evolution.

not necessarily did the cambrian have an explosion. at first interpretation, this is how it seems. some seem to be a carry over of existing forms.

Again, contradicting another of your sources.

Also, "carry over of existing forms" is not evolution.

"Conclusion
The abrupt entry of a diverse and highly derived fauna into the fossil record, during the brief Tommotian and Atdabanian ages of the Early Cambrian, has long been recognised and is now widely known to paleontologists and laymen alike, as the ‘Cambrian Explosion.’ However, despite the rapid proliferation of evolutionary novelties which undoubtedly occurred at this time, at least some of the phenomenon is attributable to the acquisition of preservational characteristics – ‘hard parts’ – and multiple lines of evidence reveal that life was already highly diversified prior to the Tommotian.

Just because life was diversified before the Cambrian Explosion, doesn't dispell the critique of evolution through the Cambrian Explosion. The "conclusion" doesn't dispute that the Cambrian Explosion happened, "...abrupt entry of a diverse and highly derived fauna into the fossil record". The fact that the Cambrian Explosion happened works against evolution.

It is to be expected that morphologically diversity should lag behind genetic diversity.

Again, genetics (and genetic diversity) say nothing about evolution, only adaptation.

This post confuses adaptation for evolution (possibly intentionally, to confuse the issue). It looks at genetics from questionable "trace" sources (poop) to infer diverity as a result of evolution. Genetics say nothing about evolution, only adaptation. A new species is needed to prove evolution, and that isn't shown in this post. Evolution is only claimed and implied here, without any proof.

All this article does show is that there was a very diverse population of worms (and possibly other species) before the Cambrian Explosion. Evolution is not show at all in the article.

As a side note, you need to break this down. Summarize the argument, ect. This was obviously written for scientists (I had to look up a large number of the terms). You need to make the argument easy to read to your audience. If they can't understand the argument, then it is irrelevant, and suggests that you may not understand it and thus cannot break it down.

I assume you are not relying on the hard to read nature of this as part of your argument, as that would be a very underhanded and illogical tactic that wouldn't strengthen your argument, but would in fact hurt your credibility.

i see you read the whole article from the link? then you would have some understanding. genetics is used for the diversity of differences. the fact of the worm traces in an older period than the cambrian. the trails, although scarce, are proof of earlier existence than cambrian. the diversity was there before. you are only spinning and confusing yourself shag. a large fossil record is not proof that everything happened at once. it only proves a large diversity at a given time.

using new tools to probe old mysteries is what science is about. you seem to be rather stuck in age old answers that don't answer anything. just pose the mystery and leave it at that. instead i prefer the new answers that narrow down the evidence rather than staying with ancient thought.(kind of like religion) keep hiding from new answers and you'll keep in your clouded ancient ways. and as long as you quote short, you can spin it how you like. take the whole section together, and it comes to a different understanding.

"The Tommotian and Atdabanian Ages (530 to 519 Ma)
The oldest known shelly fossils, simple tubes of the family Cloudinidae, first appear very near the end of the Proterozoic. Shelly fossils become more common and more diverse in the basal Cambrian – comprising the so-called ‘small shelly fauna’ – but this radiation is modest compared to the explosive diversification of the late Early Cambrian, a phenomenon which has come to be known as the Cambrian Explosion.
For a very long time, non-shelly fossils were unknown or poorly understood, the metazoan status of the Ediacarans was famously a matter of debate, and other lines of evidence had yet to be discovered. Thus, as far as anybody could be sure, the shelly fossil record was a literal record of metazoan evolution, and it seemed to be telling us that in the late Early Cambrian animals diversified explosively from almost nothing to approximately the full range of basic archetypes known today, in as little as 10 million years.
However, "[t]he presence of true, though soft-bodied, triploblasts is now documented by worm burrows, by radular markings and body impressions of early mollusks, and by phosphatised embryos, of Vendian age" (Seilacher et al. 1998, p. 80). Some, such as Kimberella and Parvancorina, can even be tentatively assigned to extant phyla. Nevertheless, although recent discoveries have greatly extended the record of sponges and bilateral animals, the earliest unequivocal paleontological evidence of metazoan life is no more than 600 Ma (Bromham et al. 1998, p. 12386). "


read careful again. better yet, read the link in whole, since i quoted only parts.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html
the cambrian explosion is a view of then available evidence. maybe it contradicts the explosion, but it doesn't contradict evolution.

One of your 'mass extinctions' has now been rejected by scientists. I guess it's back to the drawing board. But I'll keep sticking with my superstition. :rolleyes:

Scientists Report Doubts Over Key Theory of Evolutionary Extinction

by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Researchers have recently “ruled out a hypothesis” that has been taught as dogma in schools, colleges and universities worldwide: the cause of the Permian extinction, allegedly “the mother of all mass extinctions.”

Geologists and paleontologists state in a recent article in Nature Geoscience that at the end of the Permian era—which they calculate occurred some 250 million years ago—“95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were wiped out.” Called the “Great Dying” by some researchers, it is difficult not to think of a cataclysmic event, such as a global flood (Genesis 6 – 9), when reading of such massive destruction.

Regardless, evolutionary scientists have taught for decades that this Permian extinction event was precipitated by gradual oxygen starvation of the world’s oceans. This supposedly led to a massive die-out of marine life due to “clouds of hydrogen sulphide” rising from the seas.

Now many scientists are stymied as to what caused this devastating event, but Flood geologists have an idea: massive flooding, possible asteroid activity, and large-scale volcanism. History records such a catastrophic event in Genesis 7:11.

Indeed, many scientists are coming closer to the truth when they rule out clouds of hydrogen sulphide and look approvingly at “an impact, or series of impacts, by an asteroid.” Granted, this is not the Flood, but such bombardments probably did occur at this time. In fact, many geologists now agree with creation scientists that earth did experience a worldwide cataclysmic event. Take note of this shift from a position that does not fit the facts to a more reasonable scientific understanding—sudden cataclysm(s) such as asteroids or even a “fierce period of volcanism,” which happens to fit historical accounts found in the biblical record.

Of course, researchers in creation science continue to follow the evidence where it leads, and little by little, Darwinian scientists committed to evolutionary dogma are beginning to confirm what we’ve been stating all along.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sherwin is Science Editor

Source: http://www.physorg.com/news125509388.html


an asteroid and volcanism is hardly forty days and nights of rain. and an asteroid is a far cry from a supernatural being causing this rain. there are many theories on what caused it.here are a few.
http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/permcause.html

but then, this was 250,000,000 years ago, before modern man and noah. nice try at a biblical correlation though. would of been more believable if man wasn't present. you stick with your superstition then.

but then, this was 250,000,000 years ago, before modern man and noah. nice try at a biblical correlation though. would of been more believable if man wasn't present. you stick with your superstition then.Your logic is unbelievable. At least men were around 6,000 years ago to record history. There's no chance whatsoever that anyone witnessed the things that you claim happened, yet you stick with your superstition. :rolleyes:

science is hardly superstition. there is nothing supernatural about it. evidence exists, and dating this evidence is not questionable to the degree you would to fit the bible. of course the errancy is greater at more distant dating. but even if you allow %10, it hardly comes out at a 6000yr old earth. life has existed in some form since about 3.8 billion years. higher life couldn't start to exist until less than 1 billion years ago when oxygen became high enough to sustain it. as long as you keep finding things that strengthen your faith, hey, all the power to ya. find all the reverse logic and babble you can. i hope it's enough to carry these beliefs beyond the next century, but i doubt it.

i see you read the whole article from the link? then you would have some understanding. genetics is used for the diversity of differences. the fact of the worm traces in an older period than the cambrian. the trails, although scarce, are proof of earlier existence than cambrian. the diversity was there before. you are only spinning and confusing yourself shag. a large fossil record is not proof that everything happened at once. it only proves a large diversity at a given time.


What? It seems you may not fully understand what you are posting. Everything I said was consistent with what was posted and wasn't spin, as you try to imply, and you know it.

The argument is that evidence suggest that there was more diversity then previously thought before the Cambrian Explosion, and that can explain the huge explosion of diversity in the Cambrian period because it really wasn't such a huge thing.

The problem is, the evidence still says nothing about evolution. All the evidence shows is adaptation, which it implies is evolution.

It is also based on questionable evidence. New, unproven techiques with questionable accuracy (new techniques based on "estimates"). The study also bases the info on fossilized dung where much of the genetic material is highly degraded, and a lot of admitted "trace evidence". All this (mixed with the fact that it is only one study) suggests that these findings aren't near as conclusive as you are trying to imply by posting it here.

It also makes some pretty big intellectual leaps and assumptions. Because we can find evidence of a more diverse population of worms in the pre-cambrian period then we originally thought, that shows that there was much more diversity across the board and that lessens the possibility that there was an "explosion" of diversity in the Cambrian period.

It also never shows anything that can be viewed as evidence of evolution, which is the whole point of this debate. Only adaptation is every shown (and questionably, at that).

Your whole point in posting that (that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't an "explosion" as there was already much more diversity they originally thought in the pre cambrian) is hardly conclusively proven. At best, a little doubt is cast on the Pre-Cabrian explosion by this study, but one study, no matter how accurate, cannot disprove something like the Cambrian Explosion (which this study really doesn't try to do, by its own admission). More studies and much more evidence is needed to logically disprove the Cambrian Explosion. The study really only suggests a reasonable diverse population of worms, likely in the pre-cambrian. The rest is mere speculation and inference based on assumptions and leaps in reasoning.

using new tools to probe old mysteries is what science is about. you seem to be rather stuck in age old answers that don't answer anything. just pose the mystery and leave it at that.

So new methods must not be questioned?! That's hardly logical. A new method of study (techniques, ect) has to be proven reliable before it can be view as having any credibility. It must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. It's not like unproven and/or unreliable techniques haven't distorted findings before, leading to faulty or false conclusions, or been used before to intentionally spin the evidence and distort the issue (Computer models and global warming).


instead i prefer the new answers that narrow down the evidence rather than staying with ancient thought.(kind of like religion) keep hiding from new answers and you'll keep in your clouded ancient ways. and as long as you quote short, you can spin it how you like. take the whole section together, and it comes to a different understanding.

You prefer? So you are dictated by your own bias? You should not "prefer" any technique or answers over others. Otherwise you compromise your intellectual honesty in any search for the truth. You go where the info leads, not where you want it to lead; a uninterested search for the truth.

When it comes to old techniques vs new; old techniques are proven and consistent; giving a known degree of reliability that has been proven. New techniques don't have that, so logically must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. If they are proven to be consistently more reliable then old techniques, then they eventually replace the old technique. When it comes to new vs old (in almost anything), the burden of proof always logically lies with the new, not the other way around, as you are trying to spin it. It's called the precautionary principle.

You are trying to spin logical, disinterested, critical thinking as "non-progressive" which is an ad homenem, underhanded rhetorical tactic.

Again, You need to make the argument easy to read to your audience. Break it down, summarize it in your own words, etc. If your audience can't understand the argument, then it is irrelevant, and suggests that you may not understand it and thus cannot break it down (which is becoming more and more likely in my mind).

science is hardly superstition. there is nothing supernatural about it

Superstition is not, by definition, supernatural.

Here is one of your favorite sources:D :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition


Superstition is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge.


Superstition can be spiritually based, but doesn't have to be. "Science" can be superstitious. Prime example; Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

science is hardly superstition. there is nothing supernatural about it. evidence exists, and dating this evidence is not questionable to the degree you would to fit the bible. of course the errancy is greater at more distant dating. but even if you allow %10, it hardly comes out at a 6000yr old earth. life has existed in some form since about 3.8 billion years. higher life couldn't start to exist until less than 1 billion years ago when oxygen became high enough to sustain it. as long as you keep finding things that strengthen your faith, hey, all the power to ya. find all the reverse logic and babble you can. i hope it's enough to carry these beliefs beyond the next century, but i doubt it.
Science is observation and experimentation, not evolution. Until science actually OBSERVES and/or EXPERIMENTS one species changing into another, evolution is nothing but a wild guess. Until "evolutionary science" actually finds a missing link between species that supposedly evolved into one another, evolution is unproven and unlikely. Believing that a bird evolved into a reptile is not backed up by science, fossil evidence or otherwise.

The burden is on you to make your case. Still waiting for the proof that your "superstition" is true.:rolleyes:

Science is observation and experimentation, not evolution. Until science actually OBSERVES and/or EXPERIMENTS one species changing into another, evolution is nothing but a wild guess. Until "evolutionary science" actually finds a missing link between species that supposedly evolved into one another, evolution is unproven and unlikely. Believing that a bird evolved into a reptile is not backed up by science, fossil evidence or otherwise.

The burden is on you to make your case. Still waiting for the proof that your "superstition" is true.:rolleyes:

That pretty well sums it up...

Florida schools must teach evolution, despite public opinion

The Florida State Board of Education now requires the explicit teaching of evolution in public science classes, with a last minute addition of the phrase "the scientific theory of" in an apparent but failed effort to pacify its opponents. The 4 to 3 vote allows for the first time the word "evolution" in the school standards, though the concept of descent with modification over millions of years was already being taught under different wording.

The Orlando Sentinel reported on February 20, 2008 that, after months of controversy over the new standards, opponents of the decision plan to petition the state Legislature to pass protections for teachers who offer alternative origins explanations in the classroom.

The Associated Press reported that evolution supporters believe the academic freedom proposal is a "wedge designed to open the door for injecting religious arguments into science studies," suggesting the irony that "academic freedom" is only available within a limited sphere of minority opinion.

According to a recent poll by the St. Petersburg Times, almost two thirds of 702 registered voters surveyed in Florida were unconvinced of evolution.

Of those two thirds, "|29| percent said evolution is one of several valid theories. Another 16 percent said evolution is not backed up by enough evidence. And 19 percent said evolution is not valid because it is at odds with the Bible," the report stated.

It is this body of constituents that proponents of evolutionary theory apparently fear most and have tried to discredit by casting the debate as "science versus faith" and "scientists versus everyone else."

"People are going to have to be carried kicking and screaming over the threshold |to accept evolution|," Florida State University professor Michael Ruse told the Times. [BINGO!] He likened the fight over evolution to the civil rights movement.

The Florida decision will most likely have rippling effects in school districts around the country.

***

What more evidence do you need that evolution is being forced on people!

From the Los Angeles Times

Evolution of religious bigotry

The cowardice and intolerance of slapping a Darwin fish on your car bumper.

Jonah Goldberg

April 1, 2008

Ijust watched "Fitna," a 17-minute film by Geert Wilders, head of the Dutch Freedom Party, which takes a hard-line stance against Muslim immigration.

Released on the Internet on Thursday, "Fitna" juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images and speeches from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as "apes and pigs," imams calling for global domination, protesters holding up signs reading "God Bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to Hell" -- these are just some of the powerful images from "Fitna," an Arabic word that means "ordeal."

Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt's grand imam threatened "severe" consequences if the Dutch government didn't ban the film.

Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual motions of theatrical hand-wringing, heaping all of their anger on Wilders for sowing "hatred."

Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.

During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant drinking, dancing and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke nearly no English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.

At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liquor, one of the men came up to me and gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he'd scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.

It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXOYE, which not only means fish but serves as an acronym, in Greek, for "Jesus Christ the Son of God [Is] Savior." Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt with a stick or a finger as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren't alone.

In America, the easiest place to find this ancient symbol is on the back of cars. Recently, however, it seems as if Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you've seen these too. The fish symbol is "updated" with little feet coming off the bottom, and "IXOYE" or "Jesus" is replaced with either "Darwin" or "Evolve."

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. "Namely: It's acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with 'Shalom' written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with 'Usury' written inside the same symbol would be an outrage."

But the most annoying aspect of the Darwin fish is the false bravado it represents. It's a courageous pose without consequence. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap.

Whatever the faults of "Fitna," it ain't no Darwin fish.

Geert Wilders' film could very, very easily get him killed. (He's already guarded around the clock.) It essentially picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.

"Fitna" is certainly provocative, yet it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger.

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

1) Why does the auther think that Turkish Christian is a different Christian?

2) This guy needs to pull the stick out. Angry over a silly little picture, what is he, a Muslim?

1) Why does the auther think that Turkish Christian is a different Christian? He doesn't say. All he says is "or so he thought." He may have been implying that many people think they are Christians who are not, or he may have been implying that a subsequent conversation with the guy identified him as not really a Christian. Who knows?

2) This guy needs to pull the stick out. Angry over a silly little picture, what is he, a Muslim?
Uh, no. Muslims threaten to lop your head off if you put up a pic of Mohammed. Christians don't do that. He's merely expressing his displeasure through, you know, WORDS.

He doesn't say. All he says is "or so he thought." He may have been implying that many people think they are Christians who are not, or he may have been implying that a subsequent conversation with the guy identified him as not really a Christian. Who knows?
I took it to mean that the Turk was a Christian. And the Turk assumed the author was a Christian because he was American, even though as we all know, not all Americans are Christian. But the Turkish man obviously didn't know that. And I think that is very interesting.

He doesn't say. All he says is "or so he thought." He may have been implying that many people think they are Christians who are not, or he may have been implying that a subsequent conversation with the guy identified him as not really a Christian. Who knows?


Uh, no. Muslims threaten to lop your head off if you put up a pic of Mohammed. Christians don't do that. He's merely expressing his displeasure through, you know, WORDS.


I'll have to place that in my "unsolved" chest.

And I'm expressing how foolish I think he is for being angered by such a thing, "through, you know, WORDS."

And I'm expressing how foolish I think he is for being angered by such a thing, "through, you know, WORDS."I don't think there's anything foolish about being angered by a double standard.

The whole idea of the wall of separation has nothing to do with our Constitution but comes from a private letter to the Danbury Baptists. They had written to Jefferson to get assurance that the government would not establish a state religion such as the Church of England, which dominated all the people of England.


Whats wrong with those statements?

I don't think there's anything foolish about being angered by a double standard.

The Darwin-Fish is a joke, a fun jab.

The Darwin-Fish is a joke, a fun jab.I'm not saying I'm offended by it, because I'm not. But again the purpose of the article was to show the double standard in our society.

From the article: "similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims."

Also from the article: "It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger."

People aren't worried about their safety by displaying a Darwin fish. But where's the satire against Islam? Why is it not as prevelant? Again, because of the double standard, as illustrated in the article. Either people don't want to "offend" Muslims, or they're scared to face the "well-deserved anger" of Muslims.

Deville, stop trying to establish a moral equivalence between Christians and Muslims. There isn't any. Nobody's scared of Christians getting offended over an art exhibit of a crucifix in a jar of urine, but Muslims can and will lop off your head if you mock Mohammed.

Back in the day, wasn't Islam one of the more tolerant religions? What happened there?

What? It seems you may not fully understand what you are posting. Everything I said was consistent with what was posted and wasn't spin, as you try to imply, and you know it.

The argument is that evidence suggest that there was more diversity then previously thought before the Cambrian Explosion, and that can explain the huge explosion of diversity in the Cambrian period because it really wasn't such a huge thing.

The problem is, the evidence still says nothing about evolution. All the evidence shows is adaptation, which it implies is evolution.

It is also based on questionable evidence. New, unproven techiques with questionable accuracy (new techniques based on "estimates"). The study also bases the info on fossilized dung where much of the genetic material is highly degraded, and a lot of admitted "trace evidence". All this (mixed with the fact that it is only one study) suggests that these findings aren't near as conclusive as you are trying to imply by posting it here.

It also makes some pretty big intellectual leaps and assumptions. Because we can find evidence of a more diverse population of worms in the pre-cambrian period then we originally thought, that shows that there was much more diversity across the board and that lessens the possibility that there was an "explosion" of diversity in the Cambrian period.

It also never shows anything that can be viewed as evidence of evolution, which is the whole point of this debate. Only adaptation is every shown (and questionably, at that).

Your whole point in posting that (that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't an "explosion" as there was already much more diversity they originally thought in the pre cambrian) is hardly conclusively proven. At best, a little doubt is cast on the Pre-Cabrian explosion by this study, but one study, no matter how accurate, cannot disprove something like the Cambrian Explosion (which this study really doesn't try to do, by its own admission). More studies and much more evidence is needed to logically disprove the Cambrian Explosion. The study really only suggests a reasonable diverse population of worms, likely in the pre-cambrian. The rest is mere speculation and inference based on assumptions and leaps in reasoning.



So new methods must not be questioned?! That's hardly logical. A new method of study (techniques, ect) has to be proven reliable before it can be view as having any credibility. It must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. It's not like unproven and/or unreliable techniques haven't distorted findings before, leading to faulty or false conclusions, or been used before to intentionally spin the evidence and distort the issue (Computer models and global warming).



You prefer? So you are dictated by your own bias? You should not "prefer" any technique or answers over others. Otherwise you compromise your intellectual honesty in any search for the truth. You go where the info leads, not where you want it to lead; a uninterested search for the truth.

When it comes to old techniques vs new; old techniques are proven and consistent; giving a known degree of reliability that has been proven. New techniques don't have that, so logically must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. If they are proven to be consistently more reliable then old techniques, then they eventually replace the old technique. When it comes to new vs old (in almost anything), the burden of proof always logically lies with the new, not the other way around, as you are trying to spin it. It's called the precautionary principle.

You are trying to spin logical, disinterested, critical thinking as "non-progressive" which is an ad homenem, underhanded rhetorical tactic.

Again, You need to make the argument easy to read to your audience. Break it down, summarize it in your own words, etc. If your audience can't understand the argument, then it is irrelevant, and suggests that you may not understand it and thus cannot break it down (which is becoming more and more likely in my mind).

i reiterate. read the article. it is you who does not understand. there is nothing about genetic testing of dung. it is merely the evidence of a higher form of worm, as opposed to something else that left trails.

stop putting up lies of ideals until you have carefully read and understand what you are talking about. trying to denigrate me without a proper understanding of the facts only makes you look less to those who would bother to read.

new species still arose from something. if you take religious ideals, all species would have arrived at once. yet the path is gradual. why? evolution. not biblical type creation.

and old techniques in science or anythng were new techniques at some time. you have proof that would discredit genetic divergence?

stop putting up lies of ideals until you have carefully read and understand what you are talking about. trying to denigrate me without a proper understanding of the facts only makes you look less to those who would bother to read.

new species still arose from something. if you take religious ideals, all species would have arrived at once. yet the path is gradual. why? evolution. not biblical type creation.

and old techniques in science or anythng were new techniques at some time. you have proof that would discredit genetic divergence?It is incumbent upon you to prove that new species "arose" at any time in history. There is simply no evidence of this. When we discover a species of deep sea fish in the ocean, why do we assume this is a "new" species simply because we didn't discover it before? That's absurd.

There is no evidence of a gradual evolution of species, simply because you have ZERO intermediates! If a reptile evolved into a bird, surely there must have been dozens if not hundreds of intermediates, yet there are NONE!

Here's an excerpt from an article written by a PhD in physics regarding the mathematical probability of there being no intermediate fossils:

Assume a particular amphibian "A" that is allegedly ancestral to a particular reptile "R", both represented in the fossil record. Presume that the gap could be bridged by a mere 9 intermediates, none of which left fossils to be discovered. A uniform probability distribution would lead you to expect that one of the other 9 intermediates is just as likely to leave a fossil. If a mere 10 fossils of "A" have been found, consider that the odds against each find are 1 in 10, and that this collection of 10 fossils has an improbability of one in 10 billion (10 raised to the 10th power) -- if the evolutionary lineage is true!

Furthermore, each additional discovery of "A" or "R" is affirmative evidence -- a factor of 10 each time -- that there are NO intermediates. Fossils represented by scores or hundreds or thousands of fossils make the odds "as impossible" as the odds against functional protein formation via random amino acid chemistry.

Who's using science to prove his point now?

It seems like this is a pretty one sided discusion. Their is way more information on religion then on fossils and evolution.

i reiterate. read the article. it is you who does not understand. there is nothing about genetic testing of dung. it is merely the evidence of a higher form of worm, as opposed to something else that left trails.

stop putting up lies of ideals until you have carefully read and understand what you are talking about. trying to denigrate me without a proper understanding of the facts only makes you look less to those who would bother to read.

I never said genetic testing, only that they were looking at genetic material.

From your post (#29):

...recent genetic evidence reveals a different pattern, sometimes known as the ‘slow burn’ or ‘early arrival’ hypothesis. Age estimates derived from calibrated gene divergence studies...

...There can be little doubt, on the basis of trace evidence alone...

There are no "lies of ideals" going on here, that is an intentional mischaracterization on your part. They are looking at trace DNA in the dung to come to the conclusion that there were a wide variety of worms. The dung alone would never indicate that, they have to look at the genetics, there is no other way. Apply a little critical thinking here.

It is more and more obvious that you are cutting and pasting stuff to prove your point that you don't fully understand, and don't take the time to fully read and figure out. I assume that is why you cannot break the articles down that you post, or accurately summarize them.


and old techniques in science or anythng were new techniques at some time. you have proof that would discredit genetic divergence?

This is totally irrelevant and tangental (at best) to my point, which still stands, as you are avoiding it. You are saying that things that are at point "B" were once at point "A", so things that are at point "A" are valid. My whole argument was on the difference between the two and how one became the other, which you aren't even addressing. My point still stands.

The burden of proof is not on me to discredit calibrated gene divergence, it is logically on you (or whoever cites info gained through that technique, or advocates it's use) to prove it's credibility. You are simply trying to shift the burden of proof (again), which is an underhanded arguing tactic, and lessens your credibility.

Again...
When it comes to old techniques vs new; old techniques are proven and consistent; giving a known degree of reliability that has been proven. New techniques don't have that, so logically must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. If they are proven to be consistently more reliable then old techniques, then they eventually replace the old technique. When it comes to new vs old (in almost anything), the burden of proof always logically lies with the new, not the other way around. It's called the precautionary principle.

"There can be little doubt, on the basis of trace evidence alone, that bilaterian metazoans existed in the Vendian, and possibly early in the Vendian. Although some traces are simple, rather featureless, winding trails, "others display transverse rugae and contain pellets that can be interpreted as of fecal origin. The bilaterian nature of these traces is not in dispute. Furthermore, such traces must have been made by worms, some of which had lengths measured in centimetres, with through guts, which were capable of displacing sediment during some form of peristaltic locomotion, implying a system of body wall muscles antagonized by a hydrostatic skeleton. Such worms are more complex than flatworms, which cannot create such trails and do not leave fecal strings" (Valentine 1995, p. 90)."

traces of featureless , winding trails sounds like dna to me. riiight! there is no genetic testing, no genetic material. the pellets found prove a higher order of worm, with full intestinal tract. but you would know that if you read the article, and not quoted my c/p. it is trace fossil evidence. meaning, there isn't a lot found.

your copy/paste techniques to prove unfounded claims and arguements on your part is amazing. once again, read and understand. otherwise your arguement is null.

and from much farther up in the page, not having anything to do with DUNG
"Whereas a literal interpretation of the Cambrian fossil record requires the near-simultaneous, ‘late arrival’ of nearly all metazoan phyla, recent genetic evidence reveals a different pattern, sometimes known as the ‘slow burn’ or ‘early arrival’ hypothesis. Age estimates derived from calibrated gene divergence studies tend to vary considerably today – the science is new – but a consistent pattern emerges, nevertheless. These studies all conclude that the major animal groups became separated from one another hundreds of millions of years before the Cambrian. Some studies (e.g. the classic Wray et al. 1996) place the age of the primary division of animals into protostomes and deuterostomes at around 1,200 Ma – much more than twice the age of the Cambrian Explosion."

i suggest you study up on genetic divergence to understand, before you come to wrong conclusions again.

essentially in a breakdown of very common wording. just because there is a huge cache of fossils within a given time period, doesn't mean that the family of animals that left them necessarily came from (originated) that time period. new fossils, and new evidence of creatures that didn't leave body fossils, but still left evidence of themselves, is being found. genetic divergence is a way of going back to find when animals parted from common ancestors. there are certain family lines still around of some ancient simple creatures(ie. sponges) that can be used to roughly date the creatures of common past. like it says, depending on who's data, they vary, but can still come up with an overall time frame.

like in the example quoted above, conservative to liberal, hundreds of millions of years before to 1.2 billion years before the cambrian. thats the new part of the science. it gives answers, but more study needs to be given to narrow down the accuracy(although it's hard over the given time frame.) newer(meaning later in time) studies like humans are more accurate.

and fossten, you would have to re-write genesis to account for the fossil record. but the bible is truth now, isn't it?

and fossten, you would have to re-write genesis to account for the fossil record. but the bible is truth now, isn't it?
Your replies are getting shorter and shorter, and full of fewer and fewer actual arguments, but more and more sarcasm and hostility.

Genesis is consistent with the fossil record. There are many articles (http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp) that explain this. I am sure you will take the time to read all of them. In the meantime, rather than making baseless claims, why don't you show me where Genesis is wrong based on the fossil record?

the amount of time for one. all existance should be all at once. yet it isn't. from your link.this ones a hoot.

http://answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

dinosaurs on the ark? why aren't they here now? that was only about 4000 years ago. sorry fossten. most of the claims there are more incredible than scientologists views.

the age of the earth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

would you believe this one fossten?

the amount of time for one. all existance should be all at once. yet it isn't. from your link.this ones a hoot.

http://answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

dinosaurs on the ark? why aren't they here now? that was only about 4000 years ago. sorry fossten. most of the claims there are more incredible than scientologists views.Still haven't heard you scientifically refute anything. All you do is mock. You have failed to live up to your own standard of science and are nothing but a demagogue. FAIL.

the age of the earth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

would you believe this one fossten?Don't tell me you understand even half of what you just read, assuming you read it all. I did.

If you are interested, here's an article that rebuts it completely:

http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp

In the future, instead of cluttering up the thread with scattered numerous posts, when you get a new thought, why don't you consider editing your previous post?

.

it doesn't rebut it fossten. it makes it's claims for why it doesn't believe the truth, then briefly at the end states some nonsense about certain accelerations, while giving no actual proveable date or dating technique of it's own.

"It has been suggested that these increased decay rates may have been part of the rock-forming process on the early earth and/or one of the results of God’s judgment upon man following the Creation, that is, the Curse or during the Flood."

the only thing it seems to make towards the end is a conspiracy case against charles lyell, while creating some of it's own unproveable and answerless theories.

through all the threads i have argued in, i've given scientific proofs of things. it is your unwillingness to believe or accept. i have still not seen any proof from you of god. your rationale is i'm to disprove something you can't prove. science has volumes of evidence that stand in front of you. you stick blindly by faith that has no answers for, only arguements against.

when you have proof that comes up with true irrefutable evidence and answers, post it up. i'll look into it.

and sorry about that last one for mocking. i just never heard of anyone within religious ideals saying there was dinosaurs on the ark. took me by surprise. i've only heard about ancient fossils being the devils work and a few others. and , yes, i do understand scientific ideals better than you probably give me credit for. here is a rundown of the dating technique.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Just because you can post a link of someone's opinion doesn't mean you've proven anything. I can do the same, and I have reputable scientists on my side as well, who by the way don't need to rely on errors in order to discredit their opponents' work.

Nice try though. I can see that appealing to your reason will always be trumped by your stubbornness and pride. If you want to make this a pee-ing contest, so be it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radioisotopes-earth

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Link.asp?http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/kids.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/creation-research

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/creation-research

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp

http://trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp