(March 20, 2017 at 6:04 am)mikesmilestoday Wrote: It appears that somebody, either him or you has been sold some bad information.  You, of course, instantly assume that it is him who is wrong even though he is near genius in so many areas.
Look closely at what you are assuming is true, find a few good examples, and then ask him what his thoughts are about those.  Like, find a couple of fossil examples of one species evolving into a different species.  He has already admitted that micro evolution is real, so don't bother with changes within the same species, find some inter species changes to discuss with him.
At all costs, stay away from the name calling or you will have instantly lost any argument.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Snowtracks "near genius", something does not smell right here.

(March 20, 2017 at 6:04 am)mikesmilestoday Wrote: Like, find a couple of fossil examples of one species evolving into a different species.

Your move, Smiley.

That's just a drawing. Like, where are teh fossils?

And pesky DNA proves all life is related going back far enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

(March 20, 2017 at 7:20 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(March 20, 2017 at 6:04 am)mikesmilestoday Wrote: It appears that somebody, either him or you has been sold some bad information.  You, of course, instantly assume that it is him who is wrong even though he is near genius in so many areas.
Look closely at what you are assuming is true, find a few good examples, and then ask him what his thoughts are about those.  Like, find a couple of fossil examples of one species evolving into a different species.  He has already admitted that micro evolution is real, so don't bother with changes within the same species, find some inter species changes to discuss with him.
At all costs, stay away from the name calling or you will have instantly lost any argument.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Snowtracks "near genius", something does not smell right here.

Apparently standards haven't slipped so much as fallen off a cliff...

What you guys have to remember is a creationist always has excuses to explain away the evidence

If you bring up DNA or Bones they will just say same design same designer this of course fails because first it assumes there is a designer. Then it raises the obvious question why a god would make species look similar if they are not related ? Now I've seen them accuse those of us who accept actual science get accused of ignoring differences. But we don't as diversification within a species can be high but the key things that make them related stay the same. But the great thing is we can use there own logic on species they insist are a kind after all not all dogs or cats can mate.

(March 17, 2017 at 11:40 pm)snowtracks Wrote: This is what happened: God created the Cambrian animals in the greatest possible diversity at the greatest possible abundance levels at the earliest time permitted in the history of the universe (earlier human beings and human civilization would be impossible). 
This is what your guys are dealing with*: The evolutionary paradigm has had it day; however, this century finds it crumbling at a exponential rate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1
Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossils record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them ‘‘a major mystery,’’ a ‘‘challenge.’’ Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin’s contemporaries shared these sentiments, 
Page 2
Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists…   Kevin Peterson et al. (evolutionary biologists). 
*http://enallagma.com/reprints/Peterson%2...Essays.pdf
 
Darwin knew he didn’t have the fossils, but he assumed it would be just a matter of time before they were unearthed (1859 –present, no fossil. Damn, where are they?)
 

Well yeah it is considered that multicellular life began in Cambrian, but that doesn't mean that there was no life before. Indeed for the most part of human history there was nothing on Earth but single cell organisms.
Here's an interesting analogy: Spread your arms straight out from your shoulders. Pretend that all of earth history is represented by the distance between your fingertips. If you start at your left hand, time passed to your left wrist before we know ANYTHING at all - all rocks and other evidence are lost before that time. Sometime between your wrist and elbow, it seems certain that simple, primitive, one-celled life forms appeared. Also by this time, the earth's differentiation process had proceeded far enough to start building some mighty impressive continental land masses (probably nothing living on them, but they're getting ready). One-celled organisms stick around for quite awhile (actually they're still here), but by your shoulder the atmosphere begins to become enriched in free oxygen. The doom of one-cell supremacy is approaching. But it doesn't happen right away. Well past your head, and beyond the far reaches of your right shoulder, the earth finally sees two-celled critters. The expansion of life really picks up from here on, and we have evidence of some pretty complex beings by mid-forearm. It isn't until your right wrist that organisms developed hard parts (shells, bones, teeth) which could be preserved as "fossils" for us to find. Dinosaurs existed between the joints of your fingers. How about humankind? Take a nail file and gently scrape it along the fingernail of your longest finger. Way to go - you just wiped out all of human history.

And this is also problem with your theory, if you acknowledge Cambrian period (old earth) and that humans are pinnacle of creation then why would god create universe 14 billion years ago, wait 10 billion years to create earth and then wait 4 billion to create humans, then wait 200 000 years to show himself, then hide for few thousand years, then come back to kill himself and then hide?

When it comes to learning about biological origins of life and multi-cellular life you can start by watching "David Attenborough's First Life"

Yup no Precambrian fossils nope not at all. Of course watch creationist move the goal post. Or straight up deny there Precambrian. Or resort to Discover nothing institute and assert there not direct ancestors of modern life so they don't count. They do this of course because they know if we find even one fossil they have to acknowledge there goose is cooked. 

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology...ossils.htm

(March 20, 2017 at 6:02 pm)Orochi Wrote: Yup no Precambrian fossils nope not at all. Of course watch creationist move the goal post. Or straight up deny there Precambrian. Or resort to Discover nothing institute and assert there not direct ancestors of modern life so they don't count. They do this of course because they know if we find even one fossil they have to acknowledge there goose is cooked. 

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology...ossils.htm

Well for some time scientists did think that they'll never find Precambrian fossils, because it was just so long time ago and those were soft organisms. But as XX. century rolled they were found as impressions in stone. One of the most famous findings comes from the Ediacara Hills of the Flinders Ranges of South Australia.
Some of those early organisms species even have names like Dickinsonia, Spriggina and shield-shaped possible trilobite relative Parvancorina. Now these organisms were very strange and some scientists think that because they don't seem to have central nervous or digestive tracts, which even the simplest worms have, that they were large single celled organisms.

The big WHY

It seems to me that proponents of god involvement seem to confused why there was sudden boom of bigger and multicelular organisms in late Precambrian and Cambrian period. Was it Jesus' magic? Was it aliens? But the answer is much more simple. Up to that time there Earth's atmosphere was really sparse in oxygen. So it seems that lack of oxygen have prevented early organisms to from and then forming shells or other hard parts for a very long time. Instead, for 2 billion years, the world was dominated by mats of bacteria and (much later) algae, growing in the shallow waters of the shorelines and coating the rocks.

So let me repeat this: Most scientists think that cyanobacteria produced Earth's first atmospheric oxygen, so that one day more complex animals could evolve.

Yep. It was the first great air pollution event. Free oxygen is like rocket fuel for multicellular life.