Jump to content


Photo

The Grand Canyon


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#21 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 08 February 2009 - 10:23 PM

Thanks easystreet,
Posted Image

The Cambrian Muav is the white layer at the bottom.

View Post


I can't tell what point this picture is trying to make. The white parts look like the typical snow one gets in the Canyon. Snow settles on more horizontal bits. The red bits are where the canyon is more vertical. I could show lots of such pictures. I hope one doesn't think the white in the picture below has any geological meaning.

http://www.anntorren...cnp_AT06196.jpg
Posted Image

Although some geological periods have predominate colors, one can not simply look at the color and determine the age. The color represents the material and the conditions in which was laid down. The Cambrian has a number of colors in the Grand Canyon and represents many millions of years with a variety of conditions. If the next layer laid on top was a similar limestone deposit to the last period of the cambrian, there would not appear to be a break. Many times there is a break in the color, but it is not a reliable predictor.

The Cambrian Muav is often a rather drab yellowish gray but I have also seen some beautiful banding. You can see a picture of the banding here. Each color demonstrates the environment at the time it was laid down.
http://lh3.ggpht.com...GC2007_0105.JPG
Posted Image

If you want to argue that geological eras are not found in the order predicted, then you will need to use fossils or radiometric dating.

James

#22 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 February 2009 - 11:57 PM

Hi James,

It's not snow and the redwall limestone above is'nt red either.It's actually grey but has been stained red by clay.

From wiki.

Muav Limestone (averages 515 million years old) – The Muav is made of gray thin-bedded limestone that was deposited further offshore as calcium carbonate precipitates (see 3c in figure 1). It is fossil poor yet trilobites and brachiopods have been found in it. The western part of the canyon has a much thicker sequence of Muav than the eastern part.[7] The Muav is a cliff-former, 250 to 375 feet (76 to 110 m) thick.


The fossils are the whole point thats being illustrated.The muav has what evolutionists claim are cambrian age fossils and the lowest section of the redwall limestone (the whitmore wash group) has a mass kill of orthocone nautiloids in it,which they claim are mississippian in age.Where is the uniformitairian process that can produce a mass kill of orthocone nautiloids that interbeded with the cambrian,but occured at least 165-200 million years apart?

If it was'nt for the fossils no one would argue against interbedding,because it's apparently impossible to fit 200 million years between those layers.


Thanks.

#23 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 09 February 2009 - 12:58 AM

Thats why you should be specific instead expecting people can read your mind.

I promise to do my best.

Says you,but no the fossils.They are all different kinds.

I'd be very interested to know where you got this idea.

Thats why biology has progressed so slowly for the last 150 years.Vestigal organs,junk dna,etc. are all examples of how darwinism has hindered scientific discovery.

I'd be very curious to learn how you became so familiar with this subject. Care to share?

A mutated gene performs new functions in the same sense that a flat tire rolls in a new way.Mutating genes not only reduce the function of genes it also cannot explain the origin of genes.

I've given two counterexamples already. You can't refute them by merely repeating your original assertion. You have to introduce some new idea or fact into the discussion or else our discussion ends up sounding like a plot out of a novel by Franz Kafka.

Then perhaps you can refer to my first post in this thread instead of wasting everyones time.

Say, is it my imagination or did someone say that this was a CHRISTIAN web site?

If you would like to know about the competing post-flood recolonization model then I could give you a good resourse for that.

I'm fascinated, but I'd rather hear the story from you.

I personaly accept that paleozoeic and mesozoic rocks were all laid down in a succession of catastrophic events

But we are talking about the Grand Canyon, and there are no Mesozoic rocks in the Grand Canyon. That's why there are no dinosaur fossils there.

#24 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 09 February 2009 - 01:34 AM

Where is the uniformitairian process that can produce a mass kill of orthocone nautiloids that interbeded with the cambrian,but occured at least 165-200 million years apart?

The record of the rocks isn't always arranged like pages in a book. When a layer of rock is out of its expected order, it's called a nonconformity. Nonconformities can arise when a plume of molten rock in the earth's mantle floats up toward the crust, buckling the crust to form mountains. If a sea bed is above the molten plume, the plume can lift it high above sea level where it is exposed to erosion. Of course, no fossils can be deposited during this period. Over time the mountains erode away to form a plain which might again be submerged to form another, much younger, sea bed in which fossils can be deposited. In this way two beds of vastly different age can be placed one on on top of the other with nothing in between.

By the way, I was never lucky enough to take a geology course. I just picked up what I know by paying attention and keeping an open mind.

#25 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 09 February 2009 - 02:03 AM

By the way, I find that making sense of all these complex ideas and facts is a long-term process involving considerable humility and caution. Novices in any area of life have a tendency to overestimate what they know and underestimate what is yet to be learned. (In my experience, this phenomenon is best seen in young teen-age girls.) Since this web site is, ostensibly at least, Christian, it might be expected that a large measure of humility would come more-or-less naturally to participants in the discussions here. However, I'm finding that this is often not the case. If anyone wants to use a 2,000-year-old Bible as a textbook on modern science, I'd say, "Hey, knock yourself out!" But I really would expect to see Christian creationists behave as Christians. If you think I have the wrong idea about this, why don't you check with the person who put up this web site in the first place? If he tells you I'm wrong, I'll eat my five-X beaver Stetson and put an extra dollar in the collection plate next Sunday.

#26 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 February 2009 - 03:42 AM

By the way, I find that making sense of all these complex ideas and facts is a long-term process involving considerable humility and caution.  Novices in any area of life have a tendency to overestimate what they know and underestimate what is yet to be learned.  (In my experience, this phenomenon is best seen in young teen-age girls.) Since this web site is, ostensibly at least, Christian, it might be expected that a large measure of humility would come more-or-less naturally to participants in the discussions here.  However, I'm finding that this is often not the case.  If anyone wants to use a 2,000-year-old Bible as a textbook on modern science, I'd say, "Hey, knock yourself out!"  But I really would expect to see Christian creationists behave as Christians.  If you think I have the wrong idea about this, why don't you check with the person who put up this web site in the first place?  If he tells you I'm wrong, I'll eat my five-X beaver Stetson and put an extra dollar in the collection plate next Sunday.

View Post


By the way, I find it funny that some people cannot address others directly. Tell others what they can and cannot use to disprove evolution. And then turn around and do exactly what they tell someone else they cannot to make their point.

Then pull the old guilt trip game by using their world view (Christian) to try and make them feel guilty. Funny their is nothing I can say to you that would do the same because there is really no moral code that I can point back. Reverse of guilt is not going to work here. And as far as the owner of the site goes, you can ask him anything you like. No body is holding you back. He has been real busy lately and has not been able to drop by and view the forum. So I don't know when he would even read this thread. He runs his own bussiness.

And as far as your preferred appetite, you can eat hats all you like. Makes no difference to me either way. :) And as far as your stereotyping goes, it's quite lame really. You got mad because I would not concede, and kept pointing out where you were wrong. And when you saw you were not going to get away with it, because of how I addressed the problem (posted it point blank). You pulled another tactic out of your hat because you cannot debate where it looks like a creationist might get the upper hand, in a forum where debates are more on a level playing playing field. Get used to it.

Now, if you have anymore to say that is on that personal level that has nothing to do with this thread. You can pm me. Otherwise I expect the thread to get back on subject. Not that me and you have to continue. We can agree to disagree.

#27 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 February 2009 - 01:20 PM

I've given two counterexamples already. You can't refute them by merely repeating your original assertion. You have to introduce some new idea or fact into the discussion or else our discussion ends up sounding like a plot out of a novel by Franz Kafka.


Double standard?

#28 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 09 February 2009 - 01:27 PM

By the way, I find it funny that some people cannot address others directly. Tell others what they can and cannot use to disprove evolution.

You've missed the point. The conventions that govern serious discussion are based in logic, not pesonal preferences. To disprove evolution (or anything else), you first make your case. Your opponent then points out what he sees as flaws in your argument and makes his own case. You then do the same, and so it goes back and forth until one or both call it quits. Repeating an assertion is not the same as making a case. Of course, you are always free to make as many assertions as you wish, but that is not serious discussion, and if you do it, you can't expect others to take you seriously. What is it that I've said, exactly, that you disagree with?

Then pull the old guilt trip game by using their world view (Christian) to try and make them feel guilty.

Again, we're talking about conventions, not worldviews. There are certain conventions that govern civil discourse. If you violate those conventions to the extent that it interferes with the discourse, I'm perfectly entitled, perhaps even obligated, to point that out, preferably in a reasonably tactful way. And of course the road goes both ways. I have no special privileges here because we are all equal participants. However, I would expect the average Christian to have a heightened awareness of what constitutes civility. But perhaps that's only a prejudice that I acquired during my long years in the Methodist Church.

Funny their is nothing I can say to you that would do the same because there is really no moral code that I can point back

You seem to be quite angry. Apparently you feel that I'm persecuting you because you're a Christian. Have I correctly understood your message?

. Reverse of guilt is not going to work here.

Good! I'm glad to hear you say that. I don't like it when anybody tries to manipulate my emotions, and I understand perfectly why nobody else would like it either.

You got mad because I would not concede, and kept pointing out where you were wrong.

I wouldn't care to offer an opinion on whether you're right or wrong about this. What I can do is offer an opinion about the usefulness of "reading" other people's motivations. None of us can ever really know for sure what motivates other people, and I find that it's generally better not to try. Or at least it's generally better not to try publically.

you cannot debate where it looks like a creationist might get the upper hand, in a forum where debates are more on a level playing playing field.

What is it that you wish to debate?

#29 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 February 2009 - 03:19 PM

What is it that you wish to debate?

View Post

I don't think that's a very deep mystery, if one adopts the assumption that when one starts a topic one invites debate, or at least discussion.

http://www.evolution...ult_type=topics

#30 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 February 2009 - 07:21 PM

Uh, first you have to prove that the Geological Time Column exist, and as of yet there is not one ounce of reliable evidence that it truly does exist. All the fossil sites around the world do not even line up with a supposed Geological Time Column.

#31 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:28 PM

Hi James,

It's not snow and the redwall limestone above is'nt red either.It's actually grey but has been stained red by clay.

View Post


You are kidding me right? Of course the white stuff is snow. Here is another picture of the same place in the Grand Canyon from a higher perspective. The only difference is that the white stuff (snow) is on higher levels and not on the Muav. That yellowish gray stuff towards the bottom is the Muav. In this picture there is no snow. Compare this with your picture.

http://www.schursast...24/DSC02923.jpg
Posted Image

Muav Limestone (averages 515 million years old) – The Muav is made of gray thin-bedded limestone that was deposited further offshore as calcium carbonate precipitates (see 3c in figure 1). It is fossil poor yet trilobites and brachiopods have been found in it. The western part of the canyon has a much thicker sequence of Muav than the eastern part.[7] The Muav is a cliff-former, 250 to 375 feet (76 to 110 m) thick.

The fossils are the whole point thats being illustrated....
Thanks.

View Post


(my bold)

Can you explain this to me? The quote on your figure says "Notice how the Redwall Limestone clearly interbed with the Cambrian Muav". You seem to accept that you can't do this by color. One needs to do this with the fossils. How does a picture of the Grand Canyon with layers of snow demonstrate that fossils are "clearly" interbeding? Your picture does not show interbedding (and I don't believe anyone in the Canyon has found fossils out of sequence that can be replicated).
Posted Image

Are you now saying that this picture shows fossils out of sequence? I am happy to talk about out of sequence fossils, but first address whether your picture is honestly doing what it says.

Thanks, James

#32 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:32 PM

Clutching at straws again are we? <_<

I'm not talking about the picture you posted.

#33 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:13 AM

Are you now saying that this picture shows fossils out of sequence? I am happy to talk about out of sequence fossils, but first address whether your picture is honestly doing what it says.

Thanks, James

View Post



Ah, yes! But unfortunately we first must prove that fossils are actually found IN SEQUENCE to find fossils that are OUT of sequence. As many sites I've studied and seen, I must say the only fossil sequences that have been found, are located in a textbook near you.

Also, speaking of the grand canyon, we observe that the top layers are actually older than dinosaurs ( according to the textbook observation, don't get what we actually see confused with what doesn't exist.) Now, using common logic we see that for miles upon miles, supposed millions of years of dirt is missing from the Grand Canyon if we are supposed to accept the textbook definition.

If we only just look at the canyon for a few moments we realize that it is immpossible for those layers to have accumulated without large bodies of water. The major flaw with the textbook idea, is that we need to ask the question: where did all the newer, dinosaur layers go.... they just seemed to magically disappear once we reach the top layer? That makes no sense, you can't just skip 100 million years... Not that even 1 million let alone 100,000 years has been witnessed or even recorded.

#34 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:45 PM

Ah, yes! But unfortunately we first must prove that fossils are actually found IN SEQUENCE to find fossils that are OUT of sequence.  As many sites I've studied and seen, I must say the only fossil sequences that have been found, are located in a textbook near you.

Also, speaking of the grand canyon, we observe that the top layers are actually older than dinosaurs ( according to the textbook observation, don't get what we actually see confused with what doesn't exist.)   Now, using common logic we see that for miles upon miles, supposed millions of years of dirt is missing from the Grand Canyon if we are supposed to accept the textbook definition. 

If we only just look at the canyon for a few moments we realize that it is immpossible for those layers to have accumulated without large bodies of water.  The major flaw with the textbook idea, is that we need to ask the question:  where did all the newer, dinosaur layers go.... they just seemed to magically disappear once we reach the top layer?  That makes no sense, you can't just skip 100 million years... Not that even 1 million let alone 100,000 years has been witnessed or even recorded.

View Post


Hi Scott,
My first point was to address that picture as "clear" evidence of anything. It is one thing to have different interpretations of data. It is another issue when the data do not actually show what is claimed. I was hoping that a picture of the same part of the Grand Canyon without the snow might be helpful.

As far as the fossil column, it appears as though you may not understand what is represented by this geological concept. It might be best to give you an example of a test of the column.

Go into the Grand Canyon, and grab 100 fossils from random locations and heights. Take them to a paleontologist and ask them to tell you what layers in the Grand Canyon that they are found. You may need to find a specialist in each type of fossil. However, I am confident that they will succeed. Cambrian trilobites will be identified appropriately as Cambrian. Devonian corals will be identified as Devonian etc.

Posted Image

This ability to correlate fossils with height is called the fossil column or geological column. If you doubt that a paleontologist can succeed at this test, then I think you should test one in your home state and see if they can predict the layers where you found your fossils.

The existence of fossil column does not imply that every geological era is represented. This is quite rare (but does occur in a number of places on earth). A full column requires that in every geological era, no erosion took place. Most places that are above ground are slowly eroding: they are not adding layers. Areas that that are adding sedimentary layers include oceans, rivers, drifting dunes, volcanic layers etc. Many, but certainly not all, include water since this is a common way to lay down sediment.

The Grand Canyon is part of a major uplift of rock. Here is a picture from a Creationist book showing the layers (the layers represented in the geological column) and the uplift.
Posted Image

I don't expect you to agree with geologists on this issue, but it is worth understanding their argument. Once these sedimentary layers were pushed up out of the ocean, they began eroding.

Currently, the youngest rock of the Grand Canyon is Permian. Based on what we know about the geological column around the world we can make a number of very very good predictions regarding what will not be found in the Grand Canyon. Anyone can pick up a geology book and check for themselves.

Of course, no mammals (no seal bones, no whale bones, no dolphin bones etc),
No Teleosts (90% of modern fish - 20,000 species - are in the class of fish called teleosts and evolved after the Permian). Therefore, evolutionary theory predicts that in the Grand Canyon, you will not find halibut, salmon, pike, cod, herring, smelt, eels, bonefish, groupers, flat fish, bass, dories, bluegill, perch, anchovies, flounders, plaice, sole, sea horses etc etc.

And evolutionary theory also predicts one will not find aquatic dinosaurs (plesiosaurs, Claudiosaurus, Cryptoclidus) although these are relatively column in the higher layers (especially Kansas).

I would like to see how Creationist 'theory' makes the same predictions.

James

#35 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:50 PM

Hi James,

I would like to see how Creationist 'theory' makes the same predictions.


First of all,they did'nt predict anything.(you can't predict something that is random)

They found organisms sorted by the flood and asserted that it must be evolution.

Lets test the predictions of Creation,since you claim it does'nt make any.

Creation predicts that all life will be found fully formed and the greatest diversity will be found before the flood.Sinse the topic is the Grand Canyon lets look at the lower paleozoic.

Posted Image


Just as creation predicts.Trilobites are found fully formed and the greatest diversity is found at the bottom.


Posted Image


When we look at nautiloids we also find the predictions of Creation.They show up suddenly and the greatest diversity shows up first.The predictions of Creation coul'nt be more completely opposite for any Family or Order than Darwins prediction of common descent,so there is no meeting halfway,someone is completely wrong.

I'll get you some independent sources for the interbedding later on.In all fairness it should be confirmed by various sources.The Mauv does vary in color in different places in the canyon.




Thanks.

#36 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:36 PM

The coelacanth



They first appeared in the fossil record in the Middle Devonian.Prehistoric species of coelacanth lived in many bodies of water in Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic times.

Coelacanths are lobe-finned fish with the pectoral and anal fins on fleshy stalks supported by bones, and the tail or caudal fin diphycercal (divided into three lobes), the middle one of which also includes a continuation of the notochord. Coelacanths have modified cosmoid scales, which are thinner than true cosmoid scales. Coelacanths also have a special electroreceptive device called a rostral organ in the front of the skull, which probably helps in prey detection. The small device also could help the balance of the fish, as echolocation could be a factor in the way this fish moves.




In this family (sorry but I don't have a chart) we find 125 species of coelacanth in the paleozoic and only two species surving today.As Creation predicts we find the Coelacanth fully formed and the greatest diversity at the bottom.





Thanks.

#37 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:27 PM

I am happy to talk about out of sequence fossils, but first address whether your picture is honestly doing what it says.



Waisgerber and his colleagues confirmed Burdick's observations concerning interbedding of the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall. Along the North Kaibab Trail is a sign erected by the National Park Service identifying the contact between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone.

http://www.creationr.../25/25_4a2.html



So what is observed at the boundary between the Muav and Redwall Limestones on the North Kaibab Trail? As shown in Figure 3, below the signposted boundary layers of Muav Limestone occur within further layers of Redwall Limestone, as well as mottled Muav Limestone and a mica-bearing shale. Furthermore, the interlayered mica-bearing shale. Muav and Redwall Limestones grade abruptly southwards into other layers which are obviously Muav Limestone, by descriptive definition, and without any tell-tale signs of faulting that would have meant the Muav Limestone had been ‘pushed’ into that position. On the contrary, not even one of the seven expected features listed above can be seen at this supposed boundary. Instead, the actual observational evidence in the field supports the contention that continuous deposition occurred as the Redwall Limestone was deposited on top of the Muav Limestone, there being some interfingering and fluctuations during the postulated ‘changeover’ period. There is no buried erosion surface evident, so the facts strongly suggest that the Redwall Limestone was deposited immediately after, and about the same time as, the Muav Limestone. Consequently, at least 155 million years of geological time are ‘missing’ at this location.

http://www.answersin...v14/i3/time.asp



There is more than one source that has investigated and confirmed interbedding of the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall Limestone.






Thanks.

#38 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 11 February 2009 - 09:53 PM

Hi James,
First of all,they did'nt predict anything.(you can't predict something that is random)

They found organisms sorted by the flood and asserted that it must be evolution.

Lets test the predictions of Creation,since you claim it does'nt make any.

Creation predicts that all life will be found fully formed and the greatest diversity will be found before the flood.Sinse the topic is the Grand Canyon lets look at the lower paleozoic.

Posted Image
Just as creation predicts.Trilobites are found fully formed and the greatest diversity is found at the bottom.

View Post


Well Jason,
This should be interesting. Let's see if your ideas are supported by the data. Before I begin let me state that I appreciate that you are willing to look at some of the scientific literature. Even though I may disagree with your interpretation in many cases, I do respect the fact that you take a look at it.

Ok, so I will start with a simple question, if you look at this chart what does this tell you about micro or macro evolution? If you look at Agnostida on the left of the chart, do the variations that occur as one goes from the Cambrian to the Ordovician represent microevolution over time?

James

#39 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 February 2009 - 09:57 PM

Edit:Video moved to next page.

#40 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 February 2009 - 10:04 PM

Well Jason,
This should be interesting. Let's see if your ideas are supported by the data. Before I begin let me state that I appreciate that you are willing to look at some of the scientific literature. Even though I may disagree with your interpretation in many cases, I do respect the fact that you take a look at it.

  Ok, so I will start with a simple question, if you look at this chart what does this tell you about micro or macro evolution? If you look at Agnostida on the left of the chart, do the variations that occur as one goes from the Cambrian to the Ordovician represent microevolution over time?

James

View Post

Thanks James,

It's my beleif that a species is a created kind,I know the modern definition of a species is problematic.

I've never seen the evidence that even species can radiate from a single genus,all i've seen is two populations no longer able to interbreed,but they do share a common acestor becaue it was observed.



Thanks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users