The Cambrian Explosion Questions Evolutionary Theory !

Many times we have discussed & debated Evolution in a wide variety of area's but as of yet I have not seen any evolutionary idea or theory get around what is presented in these two videos. And hasn't really been discussed on these forums.
If you have an open mind are are still searching on this matter, you owe it to yourself to watch these two video's, they have nothing to do with God, but just science, which I find evolutionists view as the final say, well here is science presenting a factual view.
The questions are will we just discard this scientific information off because it doesn't suite our current world view?
Or will we thoughtfully mediate on the scientific facts presented here?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I hope that this thread doesn't end how it typically does between us, with you continually ignoring me.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Many times we have discussed & debated Evolution in a wide variety of area's but as of yet I have not seen any evolutionary idea or theory get around what is presented in these two videos.

It might be due to oversight. A lot of stuff is posted in O&C, I miss stuff all the time.

And hasn't really been discussed on these forums.

Trust me, the Cambrian explosion has been mentioned. A quick ATS search...yep, quite a few. Hell, several threads that have hundreds of replies mention it.

Here's the skinny, I'm providing a counter-video:



And now I will watch the videos, and make my comments.

If you have an open mind are are still searching on this matter, you owe it to yourself to watch these two video's, they have nothing to do with God, but just science, which I find evolutionists view as the final say, well here is science presenting a factual view.

I'll take a look at them.

The questions are will we just discard this scientific information off because it doesn't suite our current world view?

Well, you never seem to have a problem with that one.

Or will we thoughtfully mediate on the scientific facts presented here?

I highly doubt the veracity of the science presented...I'm just going to snip the videos and put out my response.


Video 1:

Quote mine out of the gate!

To put Dawkins' quote in context:

“A key feature of evolution is its gradualness. This is a matter of principle rather than fact. . . . Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation.”

Well, 7 seconds into the video and I already found a major fault. This doesn't bode well for the video.

And wow, the video I posted is actually a reply to this very video you've posted! What a coincidence! It's as if...as if this video gets circulated by creationists all the time. As if we 'evolutionists' constantly see it and constantly have to deal with the BS in it. Soooo it seems that I'm not going to have to bother addressing it any further until you watch that video I presented.

Why? Oh, I've already seen the videos several times. You can guess my opinion of their lack of evidence and misrepresentation of science.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I started to watch that video but stopped it as soon as I heard the commentary, because I recognized the voice of a well known atheist on youtube named thunderf00t. I have heard enough of his ramblings, to not want to hear anymore. Sorry I tried.

my opinion of their lack of evidence and misrepresentation of science.

Typical response of an evolutionist to science that doesn't jive with there scientific worldview perspective.
Pick and choose which science you like best, and you accuse me of doing that, well it's pretty clear you do it too.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Why do people laugh at creationists?
Because they're ignorant.

Consider what happened to mammals when the dinosaurs died out. They lost much of their competition and many of their predators, and so selective forces became weaker, and we got an explosion in variation as the mammalian tree received rather less pruning than it was used to.

The Cambrian explosion could be pretty much the same, except on a rather grander scale - that is to say, when animals first came to be, they had NO competition for the resources they exploited, and NO predators. So a massive diversification is perfectly in keeping with observed evolutionary patterns.

Something else that is interesting to note is that we think of the extinction of the dinosaurs as a single, cataclysmic event, but they (and I don't just mean birds) hang around in the fossil record for a million years longer in some parts of the world than others.

Just because stuff is compressed into a few thin layers of sediment doesn't mean that it was all around at the same time.



(NB - I haven't watched the videos because I have a crippling 1GB download limit, which is pretty much used up until the 22nd, so I can't pass comment on them yet).

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I started to watch that video but stopped it as soon as I heard the commentary, because I recognized the voice of a well known atheist on youtube named thunderf00t. I have heard enough of his ramblings, to not want to hear anymore. Sorry I tried.

Ah, so I guess you don't want to hear the words of a published scientist who is talking about science. Instead actually addressing the points you resort to ad hom. And here I thought it wasn't going to be one of those threads with you.

You do realize that Thunderf00t is a published scientist, right? You do realize that he has published more work on his own than the entirety of the Discovery Institute has, right? So why won't you listen to his scientifically based critique?

The fact of the matter is that Thunderf00t is right. Instead of addressing the points he made, you just chose to point out that he's an atheist and that you think his videos are 'ramblings' to make an excuse to not address a counterpoint. Good show...

my opinion of their lack of evidence and misrepresentation of science.

Typical response of an evolutionist to science that doesn't jive with there scientific worldview perspective.

Nothing in those videos is science. It's actually blatant misrepresentations. Hell, it starts off with a quote-mine of Richard Dawkins. This is about people lying, not about science. Please, point to a single scientific statement made in those two videos.

Also, why the odd emphasis? I meant this as an offhand comment about how stupid the video is. I've watched it a few times already, and it's grating to watch it more. If you want, I can go point-by-point on exactly how wrong it is, as I've already seen exactly how wrong it is. Please, don't alter my sentences in such preposterous ways, and don't quote mine me. I didn't mean that bit as an isolated statement, and that's clear by the fact that the segment provided is a sentence fragment.

Pick and choose which science you like best, and you accuse me of doing that, well it's pretty clear you do it too.

Again, none of what is in those two videos is science. I'm not picking and choosing anything except science over non-science. Nothing about the Cambrian 'explosion' goes against evolutionary theory.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You didn't get the message let me make it clearer

my opinion....of....misrepresentation of science.

So it's JUST your opinion of a misrepresentation of science by your own admission, that is all.
I am glad you are admitting that, because an opinion is like a nose we all have one.

I know where you stand on this issue and you know where I stand, so I will respond to other posters, that make legitimate points or inquires.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Once more, the same old game...

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You didn't get the message let me make it clearer

Yes, the message is that you're not here to debate, discuss, or participate in any sort of rational discourse, you're here to make a mockery of those concepts.

my opinion....of....misrepresentation of science.

So it's JUST your opinion of a misrepresentation of science by your own admission, that is all.

Wow, you're going to play a childish semantics game? Ok, how about this, I'll clarify things since apparently I have to treat a grown adult like a child in discourse or my statements are taken out of context and quote mined.

The scientific data contained within the videos, when not pertaining to certain obvious specifics like undisputed numbers, is incorrect or nonexistent.
My opinion of the videos is that they're badly made propaganda pieces. This opinion is supported by the lack of scientific thought contained within these videos...well, the former part isn't, but I can actually point out a few things about the actual making of these videos but that's off topic.

Facts are facts, the videos are fallacious.

I am glad you are admitting that, because an opinion is like a nose we all have one.

And I'm glad that you're up to your same old tricks of not actually addressing anyone's points, because it makes your position look as weak as it actually is.

I know where you stand on this issue and you know where I stand, so I will respond to other posters, that make legitimate points or inquires.

So...you're just dismissing my points as illegitimate because I disagree with you? Because I have a stance on the issue?

Wow, that's a new level of infantile.

Thing is though...I did actually bring up valid points. Like the fact that the opening seven seconds of the video contained a quote mine of Richard Dawkins, yet you seemed to ignore this. Such dishonest behavior should be against what your Christian morality teaches, not bearing false witness and all that.

I also provided you with a counter-point in the form of a significantly shorter video, which you just dismissed with an outright ad hominem attack against the YouTube user who created it. So my legitimate response was treated in a manner that was beyond fallacious. Please, show me some evidence of the science in this.

Another thing I've done is ask you where the science contained within the videos happens to be, because I've seen them several times and I've yet to see any actual science.

And lastly, if you're going to say my points are illegitimate demonstrate them to be. You're simply engaging in an ad hominem attack against myself by simply claiming that my points and inquiries aren't legitimate.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I started to watch that video but stopped it as soon as I heard the commentary, because I recognized the voice of a well known atheist on youtube named thunderf00t. I have heard enough of his ramblings, to not want to hear anymore. Sorry I tried.

my opinion of their lack of evidence and misrepresentation of science.

Typical response of an evolutionist to science that doesn't jive with there scientific worldview perspective.
Pick and choose which science you like best, and you accuse me of doing that, well it's pretty clear you do it too.

Yeah, thunderfoot can be really annoying with all his facts and evidence, right?

He completely debunks the videos you posted. They're nothing at a very poor attempt at misinterpreting science, and mixing in some pseudo-science!

The professors quoted in the video work for the following organization:

The Biologic Institute is a tax-exempt organization with offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. It is funded by the Discovery Institute with the stated purpose of doing biological research. The main goal of the Biologic Institute is to produce experimental evidence of intelligent design.

Seems like an very "scientific" and unbiased organization, right?

Okay... so I totally don't do videos but I do work on dinosaurs and I know a little bit about the Cambrian Explosion. What was the main argument presented here?

I wish folks didn't do dueling videos (without a link to some text, maybe.) There's just not enough hours in the year to watch all the videos posted.

reply to post by Byrd


Basically, the creationist video is trying to calculate the odds of the Cambrian explosion happening. The thing is, all the figures they use are pulled directly from their ass as thunderfoot shows in his videos.

I get why you're sceptical when it comes to videos, but like Madness said, thunderfoot is definitely qualified to talk about evolution...while the "professors" of the creationist videos all work for a creationist "research" institution that has a stated goal of finding evidence to support intelligent design. They state the outcome of their research before even finishing it...which should tell you everything you need to know about their credibility

Their main argument is:

Such complexity can only be explained through a deity, and since scientists don't have it all figured out yet, that's only further "proof" of god's existence.

Basically they're using the same arguments cavemen used when they saw fire an attributed it to god

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Byrd

 

Basically, the creationist video is trying to calculate the odds of the Cambrian explosion happening. The thing is, all the figures they use are pulled directly from their ass as thunderfoot shows in his videos.

Aha. Thank you. So there's no mention of adaptations to ecodiversity and the like.

I get why you're sceptical when it comes to videos, but like Madness said, thunderfoot is definitely qualified to talk about evolution...while the "professors" of the creationist videos all work for a creationist "research" institution that has a stated goal of finding evidence to support intelligent design.

As it turned out, there's a Wikipedia page on them which is neutral in tone but doesn't leave a very good impression of them: en.wikipedia.org...

They state the outcome of their research before even finishing it...which should tell you everything you need to know about their credibility

Yes, it certainly does!

Their main argument is:

Such complexity can only be explained through a deity, and since scientists don't have it all figured out yet, that's only further "proof" of god's existence.

If so, the deity is a poor planner who has little idea of planetary mechanics -- something you think would have been figured out after 14+ billion years of observation (particularly when you can observe minutae, stellar cycles, long term geologic movement -- or even control it.) Am I wrong in my assumption that they think it all happened within a very short time (life just "suddenly showed up" rather than gradually (over a million years or more) rebounded)?

reply to post by Byrd


Let's put it this way, they use the dishonest tactic of putting the timescale of the Earth onto a clock. So they take 4 billion years and express it as a 24 hour day to make it seem like it just happened overnight...when it took several million years.

reply to post by Byrd


You'll enjoy this, which pretty much summarizes everything nicely:

Thnx for the vids i will watch them latter. I never get why people get called creationist if you don't agree with the current theory of evolution.

reply to post by Kayzar


Because the only people that actually object to evolution are creationists. If you don't agree with evolution for another reason, please show me why. Evolution is the only scientific option to the question of the diversity of life.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Kayzar

 

Because the only people that actually object to evolution are creationists. If you don't agree with evolution for another reason, please show me why. Evolution is the only scientific option to the question of the diversity of life.

That is not true, just because someone does not believe in evolution does not mean that they are a creationist, that is a false division. It would be like me saying "cars run on diamonds and if you don't agree with me then you believe that they run on magic".
Evolution is the only scientific option today just like the idea of earth being the center of the galaxy was the only scientific option for a looong time. But with the works of Kepler(a Lutheran) and Galileo (a Catholic) prooved what we know today. I don't agree with evolution because of the flaws that does not mean i automatically believe in god.

reply to post by Kayzar


Please tell us those flaws

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Kayzar

 

Please tell us those flaws

Just do an ATS search there are tons of threads about this.

reply to post by Kayzar


Actually, there's an entire thread where people were asked to "debunk" evolution...we're several pages in, so far no one succeeded. Want to give it a shot and be the first one to achieve it?