Evolution is Not Science

Thanks TrueCreation for your assistance. "JM: Well, the fossils themselves are no mystery. The small mystery deals with why they appear when they do in the geologic record. As I mentioned, I have no clue why creationists accept the 'Cambrian Explosion since it poses more of a problem for them."Whew! I was worried for a second that you were actually going to provide a "realistic" explanation for the explosion of diversity! How wrong I was. Instead you decide to say that the Cambrian fossils do not support Creation. Of course, I didn't even claim that the Cambrian fossils support Creation (whether or not they do). I claimed that the Cambrian explosion is an aspect of the fossil record that does not mold well with evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Thanks TrueCreation for your assistance.

​

"JM: Well, the fossils themselves are no mystery. The small mystery deals with why they appear when they do in the geologic record. As I mentioned, I have no clue why creationists accept the 'Cambrian Explosion since it poses more of a problem for them."

​

Whew! I was worried for a second that you were actually going to provide a "realistic" explanation for the explosion of diversity! How wrong I was. Instead you decide to say that the Cambrian fossils do not support Creation. Of course, I didn't even claim that the Cambrian fossils support Creation (whether or not they do). I claimed that the Cambrian explosion is an aspect of the fossil record that does not mold well with evolutionary theory.

---

I just love it what YEC complain about the "realism" of evolutionary explanations and theories when THEIR version of realism is an invisible God who seem to have all the power in the universe,save perhaps the power to give proof of its existance...oh and retreats before mortals in iron chariots...

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 03-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Thanks TrueCreation for your assistance.

​

"JM: Well, the fossils themselves are no mystery. The small mystery deals with why they appear when they do in the geologic record. As I mentioned, I have no clue why creationists accept the 'Cambrian Explosion since it poses more of a problem for them."

​

Whew! I was worried for a second that you were actually going to provide a "realistic" explanation for the explosion of diversity! How wrong I was. Instead you decide to say that the Cambrian fossils do not support Creation. Of course, I didn't even claim that the Cambrian fossils support Creation (whether or not they do). I claimed that the Cambrian explosion is an aspect of the fossil record that does not mold well with evolutionary theory.

---

JM: What I am saying is that (a) creationists, for whatever reason, accept that the Cambrian explosion is a real event (no doubt on some other time scale) and (b) that creationists have no explanation for the this observation which they tacitly accept (c) I can think of no evolutionist who thinks that the increased diversity of life in a 50+ million year period is evidence that evolution is not real (d) Such 'blooms' of life are actually frequent in the fossil record (as are extinctions), but creationists seem to dwell on the Cambrian slow burn because they can find some quotes here and there that they think means evolution is in trouble because of this observation. Again, I ask, other than a few out-of-context quotes, what specific problem do you think the Cambrian fossil record poses for evolution? What is the alternative explanation for the fossil record by creationists?here's something I posted a while back on another board:Helen continues to assert that the Cambrian explosion is a complete
mystery to geology and therefore challenges evolution and cites (as
evidence) the title of a traveling exhibit. The assertion is wrong on
several counts, but let me discuss a couple of points (expanding on
those above). The 'explosion' is referred to as an 'explosion' by some
within the geologic community and as a 'slow burn' by others. At issue
(still) is whether or not we are seeing a preservational bias or an
actual blossoming of life in the 50+ MILLION YEARS leading to Toyonian
time ( http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/cambrianc.jpg ). The
verdict is not yet rendered despite the claims of creationists. I call
your attention to several recent articles and discussions of this
subject.1. Simon Conway-Morris: The Cambrian Explosion: A popular delusion
(1999)
2. Richard Fortey, Science 2001 The Cambrian Explosion: Exploded.Levinton and Wray (1999) note:

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six studies of molecular divergence versus time point to a date
for the divergence of the animal phyla that is substantially before the
Upper Vendian. These studies, done in very different ways, do not
suggest with any confidence a specific alternative date, but they all
agree that there must be an as yet hidden record of animal fossils
before the time currently thought to encompass the "Cambrian explosion.
" The results also vindicate those previous conclusions that the Lower
Cambrian faunas appear rather too suddenly, with too much morphologic,
cladistic, and biogeographic structure. Some recent Precambrian fossil
finds suggest that a change of search image may result in a more
extensive Precambrian animal fossil record. The challenge is to further
refine molecular dating techniques and to explore the implications of
morphological and developmental evolution in the Precambrian
world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

McMenamin (1998) discuss the incredibly rich fossil record from the
Ediacaran fauna which date back to at least 575 Ma so there is an
incredible fossil record before that recorded in the Tommotian-Toyonian
interval. The argument about the fossil record is lively, but certainly
not damning for the subject of evolution. However, it is a very
difficult thing for creationists to explain. If the creationists accept
the notion of the fossil record in the Cambrian explosion (which they
must in order to claim it is a problem), they must have an alternative
explanation. This 'alternative explanation' for the fossil record from
~575-510 Ma, as I see it, can make one of two claims. The first claim
is that these fossils represent organisms killed in the Noachian flood
and the other claim is that it marks a 'sudden creation' event. Neither
can be wholly satisfying for creationists. In the latter case (sudden
creation) it must also mean 'sudden death' for these are fossils of
organisms and therefore there must be death before the fall. In the
former case (Noachian Flood) it would argue that this sequence of rocks
marks the initiation of the global flood. The problem with that is that
we have pretty clear evidence of paleosols and very dry environments
within the same sequence of fossils housing the Ediacaran and Cambrian
biota. Therefore, the flood explanation is lacking in evidence for a
truly global flood. The hope of creationists is that by pointing out a
perceived weakness in the evolution of phyla that no one will notice
that their own explanation is wanting. In short, they have no clear
explanation for the fossil record is telling them either (which they
accept in this case)!CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-24-2002]

I don't really understand all of what you posted completely, but I did find this tidbit interesting:"Six studies of molecular divergence versus time point to a date
for the divergence of the animal phyla that is substantially before the Upper Vendian. These studies, done in very different ways, do not
suggest with any confidence a specific alternative date, but they all
agree that there must be an as yet hidden record of animal fossils
before the time currently thought to encompass the "Cambrian explosion."So, they are assuming that there were fossils that are not found? That seems a bit like special pleading to me. You must understand, though, that I do not think that the Cambrian fossils "damn" evolution, just that I don't think evolution has a great explanation for them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I don't really understand all of what you posted completely, but I did find this tidbit interesting:

​

So, they are assuming that there were fossils that are not found? That seems a bit like special pleading to me. You must understand, though, that I do not think that the Cambrian fossils "damn" evolution, just that I don't think evolution has a great explanation for them.

---

JM: Did you read the other two articles I supplied? Didn't think so.CheersJoe Meert

"TC, very imaginative. Borrowing from some sound scientific evidences and fitting them into a unique interpretation of earth's history. However, your scenario seems to have a couple of problems."
--I wouldn't doubt it, it is an idea that was formed into a hypothesis by what I have found, read, and studied, I see it fit for such critique and open for the realm of discussion to work out to glossy coating and get rid of the lumps."Firstly, given that you are trying to compress all of this tectonic activity into about 10,000 years (or is it only 4,500 years?) why are the plates now moving at a much slower pace than required by your scenario to move from Pangea to their present positions?"
--Yes, relatively 4,500 years. The decrease in heat would heighten viscosity, mantle convection being the main force in driving such tectonic movement, when viscosity is highered speed decreases."You did mean that sea-floor spreading and subduction occurred many [orders of] magnitude FASTER than today, didn't you?"
--Yes."Secondly, assuming that life continues unabated whilst the plates are speeding around, how do they survive the copious heat output from igneous material pouring out to create the oceanic floors?"
--I would doubt that there would have been such a thread heat-wise with land animals, though for much of the lower and median latitudes, such heat would have been relatively intense. Though in most places on the planet, such an event would have been erased by plate subduction (in my best guess for right now)."Thirdly, how do you completely alter the laws of physics to give billion year old readings for radiometric dating of rocks which can be at most 10,000 years old."
--I'm working on the radioisotope discrepancy, though the main power source for such heat would have been radioisotopic decay from a large amount of Uranium (235 or 238*), which would decintegrate into Pb-206, a stable isotope of lead."Fourthly, how can the oceans now have so much salt in them if vast quantities have been removed as the molten rocks are quenched?"
--Emphesise, or do you mean that by the 'quenching' of molten basalt by the presents of water. I do not exactly see the problem, (water would have been evaporating, most proficiently among subduction and plate boundary zones such as the mediteranean sea in which evaporates are abundant)."And which radioisotopes were responsible for providing the thermal energy to drive your scenario? Should we be able to find evidence of this in the current ratios of isotopes?"
--I believe the initial isotope would have been Uranium. And yes there very well may be such evidence, I have been looking for isotope ratios of different species of Uranium and Lead in the outer core (if possible) the asthenosphere, lithosphere, and crust distribution."You're not going to use Humphreys' story to support your large scale magnetic variation are you? I think we've demonstrated that Humphreys' material on this is not reliable."
--No, I do not see very many parallels between my hypothesis and Humphrey's theory.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Tc's explanation sans details, SNIPPED

---

JM: Of course, the details are what matter and it's the details that sink your whole premise. So, come on already, let's see the full model with all the details and ramifications. For example, in addition to all the questions I've posed elsewhere, extra heat through radioactive decay has consequences
http://www.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/adam.htmCheersJoe Meert

"JM: Bzzt, thanks for playing. This is a false accusation."
--Oh really, so what do your sources say about uniformitarianism and how it is applied to geology?"JM: Why must it be slower?"
--If such a quantity of heat were still present today, life on earth would not be possible. (hopefully after I obtain enough information to fill in the variables in equation, I can calculate this)"JM: Can you explain to me the physics of fitting LIL's into the core?"
--Emphesize?"JM: Umm, the magnetosphere is an EXTERNAL field."
--Thats right, produced by the earth's core (an inner source)"Why is there nowhere for this energy to be released? What you post here is nonsensical mumbo-jumbo."
--I don't think it is, this energy would not have been released because there were no rifts or as I said hot-spots (basically the various holes in the ground) from a thick stable lithosphere. Its no more mumbo-jumbo than the theory on planet formation."JM: Excuse me, what the HELL are you talking about?"
--IOW, evidence for a mass continent(pangea) and ocean."JM: what is diversion?"
--sea-floor spreading, two plates diverging from one another (eg. Mid-atlantic ridge)."JM: Lower viscosity does not automatically mean more rapid mantle convection, sorry."
--How so (why does this not work)."JM: This entire paragraph makes absolutely NO SENSE. You are picking terms and linking them, randomly, in the hopes of creating a coherent sentence. Try again, this one did not work."
--I'll make it easy, picture a balloon filled with hot air, and then put a hole in it (for the sake of example, pretend it wouldn't just pop..)."JM: So, modern geology knows this, it does not help you in any way based on your previous 'stream of terminology' post."
--Thats just it, 'modern geology knows this', you do not agree with modern geology?"Sorry, but I've not heard such a load of mumbo-jumbo even from a schizophrenic."
--You should read it again, or in the very least, support what you say, anyone can be ignorant, though I am sure you have good reason for such assertions."All you have done above is throw out a random selection of terminology in the hopes that something may fall into place and fool somebody who knows nothing of geology."
--THats why I said 'is there anything I am missing', so is there?"Unfortunately, there are people on here who know a bit more about the subject than you do and will not be fooled by this type of random technobabble obfuscation. NONE of what you said above makes sense!"
--Why does it not make sense, is it too complicated for you (I don't think this is the problem..), or is it my oh so flawed geology.------------------

"JM: Of course, the details are what matter and it's the details that sink your whole premise. So, come on already, let's see the full model with all the details and ramifications. For example, in addition to all the questions I've posed elsewhere, extra heat through radioactive decay has consequences
http://www.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/adam.htm
--Thanx, I'll give it a look-see.------------------

As I was reading through the link you gave me, I was disappointed that I would not be able to use the calculations he used, because his argument is against a change in such nuclei decay rate, not that its decay is a product of environmental conditions.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: Why must it be slower?"
--If such a quantity of heat were still present today, life on earth would not be possible. (hopefully after I obtain enough information to fill in the variables in equation, I can calculate this)

---

JM: Please do.

quote:

---

"JM: Can you explain to me the physics of fitting LIL's into the core?"
--Emphesize?

---

JM: Well, you know since we are at the same level and all, how do you fit the LIL's into the core?

quote:

---

"Why is there nowhere for this energy to be released? What you post here is nonsensical mumbo-jumbo."
--I don't think it is, this energy would not have been released because there were no rifts or as I said hot-spots (basically the various holes in the ground) from a thick stable lithosphere. Its no more mumbo-jumbo than the theory on planet formation.

---

JM: Let's see, your answer simply adds more mumbo-jumbo to your pile of mumbo-jumbo. I thought you told me earlier that you and I were at the same level of understanding? Why is it that your answers indicate an incomplete reading of an amateur text?

quote:

---

"JM: what is diversion?"
--sea-floor spreading, two plates diverging from one another (eg. Mid-atlantic ridge).

---

JM: The correct term is divergent plate boundary, not 'diversion'. I thought you claimed to be 'on the same page as me'? Why is your terminology not at the level of freshman geology student?

quote:

---

"JM: Lower viscosity does not automatically mean more rapid mantle convection, sorry."
--How so (why does this not work).

---

JM: well, run it through your models and see. The math is simple dif-eq.

quote:

---

"JM: This entire paragraph makes absolutely NO SENSE. You are picking terms and linking them, randomly, in the hopes of creating a coherent sentence. Try again, this one did not work."
--I'll make it easy, picture a balloon filled with hot air, and then put a hole in it (for the sake of example, pretend it wouldn't just pop..).

---

JM: ROTFL!!

quote:

---

"Sorry, but I've not heard such a load of mumbo-jumbo even from a schizophrenic."
--You should read it again, or in the very least, support what you say, anyone can be ignorant, though I am sure you have good reason for such assertions.

---

JM: I've asked you a series of pointed questions and asked for quantitative answers. So far, zilch.

quote:

---

"All you have done above is throw out a random selection of terminology in the hopes that something may fall into place and fool somebody who knows nothing of geology."
--THats why I said 'is there anything I am missing', so is there?

---

JM: Yes, several years of physics, maths, and geology.

quote:

---

"Unfortunately, there are people on here who know a bit more about the subject than you do and will not be fooled by this type of random technobabble obfuscation. NONE of what you said above makes sense!"
--Why does it not make sense, is it too complicated for you (I don't think this is the problem..), or is it my oh so flawed geology.

---

JM: No, it's too simplistic and jumbled for me. None of what you are saying makes any sense because you don't know the subject well enough to speak intelligently. That's not bad, education takes some time. You need some more basic math, physics and geology knowledge before tackling such a formidable problem. Right now, you are not able to defend your hypothesis because you don't understand all the physics, math and geology. Learn it and then post something sensible.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-25-2002]

"Nonsense, why should Lud do something that you have never done. TC, are you aware of what was being taught about uniformitarianism thirty years ago? It was taught that catastrophism is part and parcel to uniformitarianism. Your version of uniformiatarianism is a creationist strawman and no more. "
--I am very aware that uniformitarianism does not disregard catastrophic reactions, such as emense volcanic eruptions and intense other natural disasters. And I have most sertainly read a sufficient many geology books to come to this conclusion, it is assumed that such uniformic deposition is infact gradual (sediments are layed down as they are in layers individually, and not many layers at once). This is no strawman."Just as a uniformitarianist would."
--I wish it were true. (at least when being discussed outside of the debate)."Umm, TC, you just poached Noah."
--so you have done the calculations, I would be most pleased to see them, as I have come to my hypothesis on the subject, but have not done the calculations for it to be upgraded to a theory.------------------

"Ah yes, the unlikely request. Perhaps you'd like a video of the whole process? That is all that it would take to convince you, right? Perhpas you could also show us that the earth and all it's life were created in 6 days. Want to keep this up?"
--I am most glad to see that this discrepancy is a realization.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
As I was reading through the link you gave me, I was disappointed that I would not be able to use the calculations he used, because his argument is against a change in such nuclei decay rate, not that its decay is a product of environmental conditions.

​

---

JM: The argument is against faster decay no matter what the source. Surely, you were able to glean that from the equations?CheersJoe Meert

"LUD:I understand all that...you do not ned to convince me that there is an underlying assumption in geology. But what i'm wondering is when exactly was that assumption proven wrong...and when are the geologists gonna be presented that evidence you have that the basis of their scientific field is completely in error?"
--Who ever said I was proving uniformity in error? As I have stated in these forums before, I am not here to disprove an old earth or Evolution, but to show that Creationism and its outlining is much more than some skeptics see for it. And as you have said before, just because mine may be wrong doesn't make yours right, as is vice versa."Isen't it possible that other people smarter than you or i have allready considered and REJECTED an hypothesis similar to yours?"
--Well great, thats all fine and dandy, anyone can reject whatever they please, though what have you based such a rejection on?"Why do you assume that Uniformitarianism is NOT grounded on solid observations?"
--Never said it wasn't."As for Catastrophisim,my experience in historical study leads me to believe that this concept is far more founded on myths than actual science."
--I don't remember reading such an exerpt out of any history book, nor the word 'catastrophism'.:"Many culture sought divine explanations to floods,tornadoes,droughts,quakes,volcanoes,ect. I see no reason that would lead me to conclude that christian catastrophisim is any more grounded in truth than mayan,Norse or greek catastrophisim."
--There is a fine line in difference between a natural catastrophy with a scientific explination, and a catastrophy with a supernatural explination, I for one, prefer the former."LUD:yes,i have read your hypothesis several times and still,i've never seen you present me with evidence that those events DID occur in the fashion you described and assembled all the elements required at the time needed for them to occur."
--You responded to the evidence as though it were not evidence, feel free to comment on these implications if you will ludvan."LUD:Yes...evidence that those events began taking place 4500 years ago."
--See above. As for the date '4500' years, after calculations numbers will be yielded.------------------