Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Dell]

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould labeled the fossil record an “embarrassment.” This is why Gould and Niles Eldredge had to come up with their fanciful theory of “punctuated equilibrium,” otherwise known as “punk eek.”
Of course there is the Cambrian period when there was a huge explosion of life forms whereas below there are vast thicknesses of sediment where one would expect to find the ancestors of the Cambrian forms. Not only are they not found the sediment is mostly barren of all life.

I know scientist's are trying to come up with explanations for this but the excuses I have read are very weak, if they were honest they would just admit they don't know how this could be.

Hmm... nonexistant fossils earlier than those found from the cambrian period are logically understandable. Soft bodied mushy creatures would never fossilize well. The cambrian "explosion" is an overrated buzz word. Lots of things had to happen for even the cambrian creatures to come into existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm... nonexistant fossils earlier than those found from the cambrian period are logically understandable. Soft bodied mushy creatures would never fossilize well. The cambrian "explosion" is an overrated buzz word. Lots of things had to happen for even the cambrian creatures to come into existence.

Also a lot of early geologists looked in the wrong places for Precambrian fossils. Since as you pointed out what marked the Cambrian was the evolution of hard body parts that made preservation much easier than in the past. Now there is a term for the era just prior to the Cambrian and it was far from "barren".

Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia

But since these are whole body impressions generally they do look quite different from their successors. We may have found many of the predecessors of Cambrian life but since they look naturally look quite different it is hard to be sure.

 

[Audie]

Also a lot of early geologists looked in the wrong places for Precambrian fossils. Since as you pointed out what marked the Cambrian was the evolution of hard body parts that made preservation much easier than in the past. Now there is a term for the era just prior to the Cambrian and it was far from "barren".

Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia

But since these are whole body impressions generally they do look quite different from their successors. We may have found many of the predecessors of Cambrian life but since they look naturally look quite different it is hard to be sure.

Vaguely amusing is that those creos who talk
about the Cambrian fossils are tacitly agreeing there
has been evolution, no 6 day poof.

 

[Audie]

Hmm... nonexistant fossils earlier than those found from the cambrian period are logically understandable. Soft bodied mushy creatures would never fossilize well. The cambrian "explosion" is an overrated buzz word. Lots of things had to happen for even the cambrian creatures to come into existence.

Not really so. Seldom, but not "never".

To be noted btw is that older rock gets
progressivly rarer.

 

[Audie]

Yes NASA actually employ astrobiologist's who are exploring asteroids to try and explain the chirality problem.

Creationists may misquote but I am discovering that many here are bullies, some of us do have a life outside of this forum and other interests on other forums.

Ah, of course, astrobio. Tnx.

 

[Audie]

Perhaps some of us just have integrity.

Of course you do, it is unkind to
assume otherwise.

The problem with intellectual honesty
for creationists is as I said. One cannot
be well informed and maintain yec
belief while maintaining intellectual
honesty.

That you are not a student of evolution
and related fields is evident enough.
There are people here who are.

I will guess your reading of Gould did not
lead you to discover your quotes on your
own, but rather you found excerpts
somewhere. Where?

A paleontologist more fitting to quote
would be Dr. K Wise, who states that if
all the evidence turned against yec, he
would still be yec, as that is what the bible
seems to indicate.

Do you see the intellectual integrity problem
there?

Sorry if you feel bullied, nobody here is
meaner than I, and I dont actualky intend
any harm. It gets vigorous here, but it is
all light hearted, just havi g fun, below
the surface.

Stick around and you will learn something
if you will allow it!

 

[ChristineM]

Stephen Jones is an anti-creationist.

I never mentioned jones.

 

[ChristineM]

Please, share that knowledge by supplying references.

There is far too much to reference, can i suggest
https://www.google.com/search?clien...LKKalwTkxZvoDg&q=craig+venter&oq=craig+venter

https://www.google.com/search?clien...aboratory&oq=alien+life+created+in+laboratory

And

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

 

[Sandra Jayne]

What problems? Be specific.




Creationists are infamous for quote mining. So much so that one website has "The quote mine project" where they take case where creationist lied by doing so:

Quote Mine Project: Evolution of the Quote Mine Project

You can click on the various links where it gives examples of quotes given out of context and gives the full context to show how the creationists are being dishonest.



And where does he make the statement that life could not have arisen from RNA?

I did not say Joyce made a statement that life could not have arisen from RNA, what I said was he has admitted this hypothesis is not accepted by everyone in the scientific community, find statement on p.147 I think.

What problems? Be specific.

As for the different theories that have been put forward over the last fifty years or so it is difficult to know where to start so I'll just make a list of ones I have read about over the last several years.


Beneath the ice-This theory contends that the ice may have protected the compounds, allowing them to interact and, thereby, creating life.
Electricity-lightning may have been responsible for the origins of life, primarily by striking through rich volcanic clouds.
Panspermia-life didn't start on earth at all, came from space.
RNA world-as RNA is far more self regulating, if less efficient, than DNA.
Clay-It is suggested that clay may have served as an area of concentrated chemical activity, providing a breeding ground for DNA and other components.
Hydrothermal vents-The nutrient rich environment filled with reactive gases and catalysts, creates a habitat teeming with life.
I believe there are now a couple more but it is a bit like counting sheep.
Researchers change temperature from freezing cold to boiling hot and back again quickly in the lab. In nature, these kinds of changes take time and time is the enemy of clean reactions. Many of the products are highly reactive and will reactive with most any compound they contact during this change of temperature. Plus researchers also change atmospheric pressure from near zero to several atmospheric pressures. Of course all these manipulations are usually in footnotes.
Truth is they have no clue how life began and as for finding out why all amino acids are left handed and sugars right handed well, best not to even go there!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not say Joyce made a statement that life could not have arisen from RNA, what I said was he has admitted this hypothesis is not accepted by everyone in the scientific community, find statement on p.147 I think.

Your paper was almost thirty years old. Did you see that? A lot has happened since then. And you claimed there were problems with evolution that were ignored. You said this:

"I am not denying some evolution has occurred although I am not convinced by everything scientists claim and there are some problems in their theories although they always seem to be 'ignored'."

That was the claim that I wanted to hear specifics about.

And I know that you do not like to hear this, but when creationist sources are linked they are usually easily refuted. And to even work at places such as Answers in Genesis the "scientists" there have to swear not to use the scientific method. That means the work that they do is not "science". Sorry if I came off a bit brusque, but we see the same arguments so many time that there is an acronym for them. They are called PRATT's or Points Refuted A Thousand Times. It can be difficult to be polite when one sees the same old claims that were refuted many times already.

 

[ecco]

I think people often waste their time discussing evolution versus creation when the more important and interesting question is how did any life begin 'abiogenesis'. Here the scientists have no answers just 'fanciful' maybe's.

But that's the way science works.
Maybe this happened. Let's research it and make determinations.

1. Maybe the earth is not the center of the universe. Let's research it and make determinations.
2. Maybe the sun is the center of the universe. Let's research it and make determinations.
3. Maybe all living things evolved from earlier forms. Let's research it and make determinations.
4. Maybe the universe is expanding. Let's research it and make determinations.
5. Maybe the crust of the earth is moving causing mountains and earthquakes. Let's research it and make determinations.

Eight hundred years ago no scientist posed any of these "fanciful maybes". One hundred years ago scientists did not pose #4 or #5.

If you were around 500 years ago, you probably would have derisively
laughed at Copernicus.

 

[ecco]

Here is a link to a paper written by Professor Gerald Joyce.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980211165.pdf

What was your purpose in posting that link? Did you read the article? Did you understand what he was saying?

Do you realize that Dr. Joyce firmly believes in Darwinian Evolution?

Defining Life: Q&A with Scientist Gerald Joyce
Defining Life: Q&A with Scientist Gerald Joyce
By Leslie Mullen August 01, 2013 Search For Life

"The coolest thing in the discussion, which wasn’t in the plan document, was appreciating how Darwinian evolution achieves the key attribute of life, which is to allow complex systems to persist despite an often unpredictable and changing environment. And it does so through molecular memory in the form of genetic information that arises and is maintained by Darwinian evolution."​

 

[SkepticThinker]

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould labeled the fossil record an “embarrassment.” This is why Gould and Niles Eldredge had to come up with their fanciful theory of “punctuated equilibrium,” otherwise known as “punk eek.”
Of course there is the Cambrian period when there was a huge explosion of life forms whereas below there are vast thicknesses of sediment where one would expect to find the ancestors of the Cambrian forms. Not only are they not found the sediment is mostly barren of all life.

I know scientist's are trying to come up with explanations for this but the excuses I have read are very weak, if they were honest they would just admit they don't know how this could be.

Your reference to Gould is based on a quote mine, and is therefore an inaccurate representation of his position:

"We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

 

[Audie]

Also a lot of early geologists looked in the wrong places for Precambrian fossils. Since as you pointed out what marked the Cambrian was the evolution of hard body parts that made preservation much easier than in the past. Now there is a term for the era just prior to the Cambrian and it was far from "barren".

Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia

But since these are whole body impressions generally they do look quite different from their successors. We may have found many of the predecessors of Cambrian life but since they look naturally look quite different it is hard to be sure.

Oh now this looks exactly like an adult lobster.

larvallobster - Google Search:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh now this looks exactly like an adult lobster.

larvallobster - Google Search:

He has his father's eyes.

 

[Audie]

He has his father's eyes.

That is a girl. Dont YOU got eyes?????