John Solum

There's a wonderful discussion of Wells' claims about the Cambrian explosion here:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/</a>

You should also check out these links:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec97.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec97.html</a>

<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html</a>

<a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm</a>

I would like to make a few comments:

1) The Cambrian explosions wasn't an instantaneous event, it lasted ~10 million years (If Wells wants to add the Vendian on to that (the last period of the Precambrian, from 650-544 million years ago) that increases it even more.

2) It's correct that mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles are all chordates, but they don't appear during the Cambrian. Mammals don't appear until the middle of the Mesozoic, as do birds, amphibians don't appear unitl the Devonian, reptiles don't appear unitl the Carboniferous, and the first fish doesn't appear until the end of the Cambrian (I don't know exactly when). A lot of the phyla appear in the Cambrian, but a lot of the smaller-scale taxonomic divisions do not.

3) Wells' quotation of James Valentine is out of context. See the "Types of misquotation" section of this link:

<a href="http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/quotes/quotes5.htm" target="_blank">http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/quotes/quotes5.htm</a>

Bait

Hi Kosh, ol' buddy, ol' pal...
[code] </pre>[/quote]


&gt;&gt;&gt;Hey Ron, thought you'd just become our latest
RTOW (Random Theist Of the Week).


Aw shucks…thanks guy…’preciate it (blush/shuffle feet)

&gt;&gt;&gt;As for the day age thing, there a couple others
on that thread who did not lend support to your
theory. But overall all I'm a litle frustrated
with the lack of opinions on it! But let's take
that argument over there if you want....

No need, we’ve beat that one to death anyway.


Originally posted by Bait:
There are scientist that have built scale models of the "ark"...and after testing the models discovering how stable it is,


&gt;&gt;Well, small scale models of it may have been
stable in the water (yes, I've seen that experiment) - and assuming that they got the shape
right (the Bible doesn't really say). BUT, the
reality is that if that ship were built to
full scale, it would leak like a seive and break
up on the first wave it crested! See other threads
here in the archive for a full treatise on the
[in]feasibility of a wooden ship that size.

I will, but that wasn’t my point. My point is that if it is irrefutable that from a scientific standpoint that there never was a flood, then why is so much time being spent by scientists researching the possibility that there may have been one?

Many Chinese dragons have short front legs, long back ones, as do the european ones. Both European and Chinese indicates (at times) fire breathing, and I agree with the assessment as to what a bite feels like.

&gt;&gt;&gt;BTW, as to he proliferation of Dragon myths,
I tend to believe that there was cross continent
contamination long before even the Vikings came
over. There is good evidence of the Chinese
coming over here (stone anchors off the coast
of California, drawings of a large ship being
launched in China). And the similarities between
the Mayans serpent god and a Chinese dragon have
noted. Probably the most convincing though is
the "Cocaine" mummies... yes, Egyption mummies
with traces of Cocaine on them. Cocaine only grows
in S. America!

No dispute here, it could have been cross contamination, it could have been a common creature (kimono dragon), or a dozen other explanations. My point again, was that usually myths as prevalent as these usually have some basis in fact...whatever that fact may be (which becomes the subject of research)Even "King Arthur" seems to have some basis in fact.

I really have never heard of anyone translating the "tail" of the behemouth as anything other than a tail...not a sexual member. Honestly, where can I find that reference?

That's because that's not what happened. As shown
in that thread, the Hebrew word meaning "penis" was
translated into "tail" for modesty. See the
thread I linked you to earlier. I think I also
included the text with a book reference as well.

I’ve checked over 15 references and translations…some not related at all to the King James Version. Not one of them references that word as “penis”, instead all of them reference it as “tail” (including Youngs literal translation). All 13 major translations translate it as “tail” although they disagree on other words in that set of verses. All of them also references the Hebrew of male genitalia as “Loin”. Sorry Kosh, this one I’m having a real hard time believing, it sounds as if someone is mistranslating for whatever reason.
quote:


As to going to another thread concerning geology, I'm not opposed, but I'll say up front that it is not my area of expertise...though I think it is for some of you. So the idea is to get me right up front on unequal ground?

Well, if you're gong to question the science,
you have to back it up. You can't just say "I
don't know anything about, and it doesn't make
sense to me, so I think you're wrong". Did I
ever tell you my space shuttle analogy? Yeap,
I don't understand how it works, but that doesn't
keep it from going up.


No, you misunderstand. I’m much more versed in archeology than geology. And I'm not necessarily questioning science...just some of the common "scientific theories". I can present evidence to a certain point, but it seems Patrick in particular is way out of my league. (I’m giving you one here – ok?). You and I have bumped heads before, you know I’ll admit when I get way out of my league, or have been beat.

Geez, Sometimes you guys are like my daughter when she comes and asks “dad, may I do….? I reply yes, then she proceeds to argue with me as to why she should be able to.

quote:

But do you realise that even when I do give logical reasons for my belief, you never acknowledge that you can see where I am coming from, or how I came to that conclusion (right or wrong)?

&gt;&gt;&gt;Hmm. DIdn't realize I was ignoring your stuff.
Some of it I just quit going on about because after we show the reasoning, you still come back
and keep saying the same thing. So it's not like
we're going to concede to you based on repetition!

No, I don’t want you to concede because of repetition. However, when faced with even somewhat sound reasoning, it should be at least somewhat acknowledged. My original statement says in essence that I personally believe that the first seven days plus or minus the time Adam & Eve spent walking the garden with God, COULD have been thousands of years based on the two verses (actually there’s a lot more that lends evidence) plus the ages recorded of all of the people mentioned up to and including Noah. This, of course is ASSUMING the Biblical narrative is correct up to the flood (which I know you do not believe). So my point is that if you take that theory, then the timelines of the various archaeological “finds” MAY not disagree with timelines of the Bible. Ie: IF there was a flood, then it is possible it occurred thousands of years before many scholars try to date it. So I make that statement, and I have YOUR partners working up Biblical timelines to prove me wrong so I can be shoved back into the YEC model. The fact is, there are gaps, and there is evidence that the first seven days plus could have been thousands of years. Actually, I was hoping someone would come up with "how could someone after the flood be 150 years old". I had an answer (years back then were often based on 360 days per year, not 365).

I presented as archaeological evidence (I forget the topic we were on) the digs concerning the city of Jericho. You had stated that the walls had fallen due to age only. There has been in fact, several “cities” found (as I recall 4 as a matter of fact). There is dispute as to dating, but there is no dispute that one of the cities found has evidence of a massive fire that destroyed one, and the probability of earthquakes destroying at least one of the others. You said it didn’t happen…but there is physical evidence of both earthquake and fire, including the geology of the area.

Someone gave me an article to read that showed an experiment where they thought they had gotten something to travel faster than light. I stated that if that was the case, it would prove Einsteins theory of relativity wrong. I stated that because that is what the article itself said. I also (jokingly actually) said that if the experiment was true it would also mean time travel is possible, and the possibility that God could be in the future and the past could be true. If you arrive before you start, is this not time travel?
quote:


My "thousand year" theory as an example...although I said right up front that I don't necessarily believe the YEC position,

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;, as you can see from the other thread, I'm
still tring to get a straight answer on that.
I realize you're not a YEC (it is easy to forget
that though!) But realize that my approach is
to disprove your day age theory. The day age
theory is simply a way to switch from Biblical
literilasm to an allegorical interpretation.

No, I disagree. If you take the Bible literally as to what I Peter says, and what it says in Psalms, it explains the mystery - not allegorical interpretation at all. NOW who's getting into semantics?

&gt;&gt;It's
weaseling IMHO. Quite simply, it's much easier
to dismiss a literal interpretation of Genesis
than an allegorical one (although the allegorical
one doesnt line up either - see previous posts
in this thread).

The “allegorical” one (as you call it) may not line up exactly at the moment, but it lines up much better than the 24 hour day one does.(Which is my point) . I think I’m actually being more literal than the YEC’s. So how is it “weaseling”? I stated my belief, and why. Is it possibly because since I’m not as you say a “YEC” it is much harder to disprove me without getting me into that category? If you only have me saying the earth is only 6,000 years old…you can point to all kinds of geological evidence. However, if I say it is possible the earth is old by Biblical accounts, your evidences are weakened.

&gt;&gt;&gt;But... it's easier to kill a weed
before it gets too big.

Oh, I’m a weed now.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Hence I will argue, and
I do believe this, that the Genesis day age
theory holds no water and was not the intent of
the authors.

You believe??? I thought you guys didn’t believe in anything, making you more objective. This statement doesn’t sound objective to me. And by what evidence do you come to the supposition that my theory was not the intent of the authors? I gave you the Biblical evidence of why I came to that conclusion.

Gotta run
Later????

Ron

ps418

Bait:
My point is that if it is irrefutable that from a scientific standpoint that there never was a flood, then why is so much time being spent by scientists researching the possibility that there may have been one?

Which scientists are you referring to?

hezekiah jones

Before you once again overlook Kosh's original citation, you might want to check into Stephen Mitchell's credentials before you accuse him of mistranslating.

hezekiah jones

Actually let me save you the trouble:

<a href="http://www.vermonthumanities.org/conference/job.htm" target="_blank">Conference on the Book of Job</a>

Kosh

Oggy Doggy Daddy!

I think the people that have done that did so
because they believed the story and wanted to
put to rest questions about the viability of it.
Ie, they had an agenda. Still, simply because
a scientist tests a theory, doesn't make it true.
Just means it required some research to reveal
the problems with it. And to most laypeople, the
building of a big wooden ship sounds ok. Then
the scientists have to come and point out the
problems.


Like I said, try a translation of it that's not in a Bible.

Well, that's fair. But understand, the reason
that evolution is considered to be FACT is because
of the overwhelming amount of evidence co-orboration from many different disciplines. Not
just Archeology, but geology, genetics, etc. So
to limit it to one field of study is like tying one
hand behind our backs. If we're going to do that,
then you have to let us selectively remove parts
of the Bible that you think validates the day-age
theory.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Did we
miss a contradiction?

I think all I claimed is that the walls of Jericho
fell hundreds of years after Joshua's time, and
that the city was uninhabited when it occurred.

"I promised myself I'd never get caught in one
of these time paradoxes, and yet here I am"
-Commander Janeway, Star Trek: Voyager


Strawman alert! Strawman alert! I never claimed
that those verses were to be allegorical.I'm
talking about Genesis. The conversation concerns
those verses only in questioning their support
of the day-age theory.

OK, the scientific model is a cog with 25 teeth.
The YEC model has 6 (couldn't resist),
and the day-age model has 23. They look closer
at a distance, but
they still don't mesh. I'm just trying to eliminate that 23 tooth model so it's more obvious
to you...

Not you, the day-age model.

Strawman. One more, and I'll sick my mother-in-law
on you (wicked witch of the west).

Q: before the last 100 years of scientific
research, is there sound support that people
believed that way? If so, why was there such
a fight from the religious side when science
started contradicting the church's position on
the age of the earth?

lpetrich

However, that could indicate (1) ahistory of escaping preservation by being entirely soft-bodied, (2) some relatively rapid evolution, or (3) both. For more, see <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/" target="_blank">this discussion of G.A. Wells</a> and <a href="http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm" target="_blank">this discussion of early animal evolution</a>.

Bait, what would you consider convincing evidence, short of going back in time in a time machine? In fact, Bait, I ask what you would expect to see if you could go back in a time machine. Do you expect to meet Adam and Eve in the flesh? I expect to see a population that looks more and more simian the farther back one goes in time.

Bait, you have thus contradicted yourself, because your claim that Genesis is accurate is a way of saying that the Bible indicates how the Universe was created.

Bait, which ones? Noah's Flood was completely discredited in the early 19th century.

Also, where are your dragon pictures, such as pictures of dragons from medieval Europe and from China?

Alternatively, they could be generated by common circumstances. There is no need to be literal-minded. Thus, we could have some relic of an instinctive fear of snakes that leads to a fascination with snaky monsters -- dragons.

Kosh

Not entirely correct:

homo sapiens neanderthalenisis

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Ron. Thanks for so honest an answer about the skulls. I’ve chopped the ordering of your post around a bit for clarity, hope you don’t mind.

Why might that be, I wonder...? See, with evolution, we’d expect things that shared a recent common ancestor to be similar. Why might god make the pinnacle of his creation so very ape-like?

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern

Here’s a gibbon:



and another, teeth incomplete but fully lateral:



Here’s another A:



A is in fact Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern

Ooh, it’s sooo tempting to mention your expertise in chimps...

Correct! But which species? B is Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 Myo.

C is Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 Myo
D is Homo habilis, KNM -ER 1813, 1.9 Myo
E is Homo habilis, OH24 , 1.8 Myo
F is Homo ergaster (late H. erectus), KNM -ER 3733, 1.75 Myo

G is Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 yrs. It has a cranial capacity of 1300cc.

I is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 yrs

J is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 yrs. Incidentally, that’s actually a very astute suggestion, about it being a juvenile, because in numerous ways we humans are neotenous (retaining juvenile characteristics into adulthood) apes. Developmentally, neoteny was one of the main mechanisms of our evolution -- explaining our relative hairlessness, skull-spine angle, brain to body size, learning abilities, late maturation, etc etc.

H is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 yrs

K is Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 yrs

L is Homo sapiens sapiens, modern.

Yep, trick question. They’re all apes.

You tell me... Maybe you’d like to take a look at Jesse’s first post in the archived <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001481" target="_blank">Creationist confusion over hominid classification</a> thread.

Okay... so far I’ve only been able to check some of these particular specimens, but the results so far are:

B has a cranial capacity of 485cc
C has a cranial capacity of 428cc
D has a cranial capacity of 510cc
E has a cranial capacity of 600cc -- in a chimp-sized creature.

Not among those pictures (which are a simple illustration of the absence of obvious missing links, not to indicate a direct ancestor-descendant line, nor a full selection of the fossils -- far from it!) is Homo erectus. This was around from about 1.6 million years ago to c.60,000 -- that’s from F to H -- and had cranial capacities from about 900 cc in early specimens to 1050 cc in later ones.

G has a cranial capacity of 1300cc

Sorry about that. It’s not my picture, just a handy single image to post!

[Edited to add: thinking about that further though, that's the point. It's not to disadvantage anyone, but to make them concentrate on the shapes, not other factors.]

Sounds reasonable. The above was just a rough demonstration from one series of pictures. Time for you to have a thorough browse round the Smithsonian’s <a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html" target="_blank">Hall of Human Ancestors</a>, and TalkOrigins’s <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/" target="_blank">Fossil Hominids</a> pages.

If we were classifying any other mammal, there would be no choice but to group Homo sapiens in with Pan and Gorilla. Some systematicists already do so.

To alter the perspective a little and bring in genetics...

You accept, I take it, that the patterns in DNA are copied down generations, even potentially into separated lineages, yes?

Perhaps, then, you can explain why we share several mutations in otherwise identical non-functional DNA with the other great apes?

For instance, humans without adequate diets are liable to suffer from scurvy, due to vitamin C deficiency. Most other mammals are able to synthesise their own vitamin C. Yet we humans do possess the same gene for this that they do... but it is broken by a mutation, and is present in us as a so-called pseudogene. But the intriguing bit is that chimpanzees and gorillas also possess this same broken gene... and it is broken in exactly the same way as in humans. The chances of this being the case by accident are phenomenal.

If we shared a common ancestor, one which had enough vitamin C in its diet (fruit and veg, yeah?), then a mutation in that ancestor that disabled the vit C synthesising machinery would not be a disadvantage. If that ancestral lineage later split, the (now pseudo-) gene would be carried down into the descendants, ultimately into the separate species.

However, if we were designed, is scurvy not an odd thing for the creator to condemn us to... and more to the point, why design the great apes that way too?

ATB, Oolon

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Bait

[LIST]