Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nelson on April 22, 2010 at 11:42pm

what is that you're asking? you don't think that evolution over 10 million years is gradual? you do understand that the body designs we're talking about were complex verses previous single-celled and simple multicellular organisms and not complex body designs as in horses, hippos, hummingbirds, and humans right? have you actually taken a look at organisms representative of the Cambrian explosion?

on the subject of the Cambrian Explosion and what it meant for the fossil record and complex body designs he said, "Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."
taken on its own that would seem to agree with your attempt to paint him as critical of evolution and as offering up the Cambrian explosion as evidence against evolution. except just a short while later in the same book he says, "Our fossil record is almost exclusively the story of hard parts. But most animals have none, and those that do reveal very little about their anatomies in their outer coverings (what could you infer about a clam from its shell alone?). Hence, the rare soft-bodied faunas of the fossil record are precious windows into the true range and diversity of ancient life." (Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)
if that's not clear enough for you he's making it clear that the Cambrian Explosion is the first uncontested appearance in the fossil record of modern multicellular life NOT that the Cambrian explosion represents the first appearance of modern multicellular life on Earth in fact! this is because what came before and what persisted into the Cambrian explosion were soft bodied animals that aren't preserved in the fossil record for us to point to.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 23, 2010 at 1:27pm

Oh no I am not trying to argue that he is critical of evolution, he is just admitting a difficulty here. So anyways I don't remember you answering this. Why did so many creatures acquire shells in this 10 million year period

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on April 23, 2010 at 6:19pm

that's just my point. he wasn't "admitting a difficulty". creationists have tortured what Gould and others have said in order to attempt to manufacture a difficulty where none exists.

as for why creatures developed hard body designs, doone's post below answers that question. previously the calcium required to build those hard body designs didn't exist. once the calcium was present organisms evolved the ability to exploit the new niche. since there was no initial competition in this niche the organisms that evolved to exploit it were wildly successful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on April 23, 2010 at 12:21am

it was closer to 100 million years which removes the time concerns. You have changing environments, animals hitting land, sex and hence sexual selection becoming more prevalent. Check out this vid and it will help.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 23, 2010 at 9:38pm

So should I trust the ID citing evolutionists on a 10 million years or should I trust the evolutionists stating that it took 40-60 million years or a 100 million years. It seems like your telling me an exaggerated story of the fishing trip with a fish that keeps getting bigger and bigger

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 23, 2010 at 9:55pm

Well I have examined first hand sources which wikipedia uses so my claim to 10 million years is just as valid as wikipedia's claim that it took 70-80 years for the xplosion

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 24, 2010 at 4:27pm

/////You should go visit Tyre, David. "Tyre is an ancient Phoenician city and the legendary birthplace of Europa and Elissa (Dido). Today it is the fourth largest city in Lebanon[4] and houses one of the nation's major ports. Tourism is a major industry."

You reference says "The old city of Tyre will never be rebuilt." as evidence of the 100 percent accuracy of the Bible.


"The present-day city of Tyre covers a large part of the original island and has expanded onto and covers most of the causeway, which had increased greatly in width over the centuries because of extensive silt depositions on either side. The part of the original island that is not covered by the modern city of Tyre consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times."

The Bible is a FAILED prophecy in this instance.///////////////////
You are write and the site is wrong in this instance alone(so far)The author misinterpreted the verse
"therefore, thus says the Lord God,` Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock. She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,' declares the Lord God, `and she will become spoil for the nations.'... For thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army.... Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water.... And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the Lord have spoken," declares the Lord God.... "Then all the princes of the sea will go down from their thrones, remove their robes, and strip off their embroidered garments. They will clothe themselves with trembling; they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment, and be appalled at you." (Ezekiel 26:3-5,7,12,14,16)"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 24, 2010 at 5:17pm

And I will make you like a shining rock. You shall be a spreading place for nets, you shall not be built any more. For I, Jehovah, have spoken, declares the Lord Jehovah

Does this say it will never be rebuilt no it says build no more

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 24, 2010 at 5:36pm

built no more refers to the current city and is not hte same as rebuilding

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 24, 2010 at 5:46pm

consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times."

So the ruins of the ancient city havent been rebuilt but have been left open and bare hmm sounds like another city was built next to it

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 24, 2010 at 5:56pm

How would the ancient site be there if they had rebuilt it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 24, 2010 at 6:13pm

Ive said this before and I will say it again the new Tyre is not the same site as it was where it is bare

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page