Evolution......?

quote:

---

Well, in regards to evolution, the Cambrian explosion points away from this.

---

JM: How? Please explain to me what YOU think the Cambrian explosion is and then explain to me what you think conventional science thinks it is and finally why your second answer is a problem for evolution.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I think the Cambrian Explosion is the appearance of every major phyla of living organisms appearing in a relatively brief geological time period. "Conventional science" thinks it is a "fascinating intellectual challenge".

---

JM: Does this mean you accept that it happened in a 50 million year time frame? Do you realize that the more the 'so-called' explosion is examined, the slower it becomes? The explosion is now referred to many as a 'slow burn'. However, what is the creationist explanation for these observations? If you accept that the 'explosion' is indeed a real event in the geologic record, then what meaning does it have for creationists?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

As you can see Mark it is easier to believe the argument for DESIGN rather than random mutations. The answer to Quicksinks question is simple to answer. God DESIGNED THE BAT THAT WAY.

---

JM: Ok, let's follow your line of reasoning for a moment. Why didn't god give bats good eyesight? Why did God design the human knee the way he did? An engineer could come up with a more efficient and more trustowrthy design. Ditto for the back. Why did God give wings to the Penguin and the ostrich? Why did god give whales the vestiges of a leg or humans a tailbone? Why did God design humans with 5 fingers instead of 4? What is magic about 5? Why didn't god give humans echolocation? I can think of many wonderful uses if I had that power.CheersJoe Meert

TC,God said we were created in his image and that we were 'good', guess that doesn't mean 'great' according to you.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Then perhaps it would be worth presenting some predictions founded
in a creationist framework, and evidence which bears the
predictions out, rather than simply state that the author has
already made up their mind ... dodging the challenge isn't
debating either"
--What would you accept as evidence? I have an idea, you show me something that is explainable and is evidence for a uniformitarian scale, and show me why it is only explainable by this reasoning. We can take it form there.

​

---

How's about the depth of the oceans, paleomagnetic reversal signatures in the ocean and on land? You keep letting that discussion slip by!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ As we've said elsewhere sea floor spreading/continental drift instigated by acclerated radiogenic heating solves the problem nicely: you get (i) a mechanism for rapid spread, (ii) rapid reversals and (iii) correlated isotopic proportions with strips all in one hit.

​

---

JM: You mean, as you've asserted sans EVIDENCE. I am only asking that you back your model up with evidence. I must confess that 'correlated isotopic proportions with strips' makes no sense to this geologist. Care to clarify? What strata are flood strata according to you? TC says cambrian trhough tertiary. You've got a lot of reversals to explain pre and post flood!CheersJoe Meert