Just Accidental?

[Subduction Zone]

What you call running away and cowardice(which are character attacks) are people expressing a nature of self control. When you dodged my questions for you the other day, I wouldn’t call you a coward or running away (although you would call yourself one if self-aware) as to what you do to others but not hold yourself accountable.

When did I ever dodge your questions? And no, that is a simple observation. No more.

When you constantly accusing others of "weaeling" when you use bogus sources you are in no position to complain.

A method that can perhaps help you overcome this, is to have a self vs. self debate. If you were debating yourself, how would or could you respond to yourself?

Other people see evidence differently than you, see as in see with eyes and also see as in see with awareness. Not everyone is naive and guillable enough to demand “may be’s,” “could be’s,” “believed to be’s” as facts.

There is nothing wrong with mystique and not knowing, or having beliefs, or middle ground. In my opinion, when someone is overly needy for answers, they start generating a legion of “may be’s,” “could be’s,” “believed to be’s,” as factual evidence and are too far gone to even discern facts from beliefs or facts from fiction. Rather than de-engineer this uncontent, hyperactive needy mentality for answers, they tend to demand its evidence as fact instead in order to attempt to force their need for control and dominance over others.

Personally, I don’t have anything to lose. I have no pledge of allegiance to certain group ideologies only, or reputation/image to keep no matter what the cost. So, what do you have to lose? Image/reputation, allegiance to a certain group ideologies only?
I am content that I cannot know everything, content with mystique, content with clearity to see from any side, content in appreciating what other fellow humans believe, even when differing from my own.

Too long, didn't read. I saw that you claimed you had "nothing to lose". And that is true. When you have already lost there is "nothing to lose".

 

[Profound Realization]

Luskin is a lawyer, not a credentialed scientist. He has a B.S. and M.S. in earth science and was employed as a low level technician at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (which he calls, in his bio, "Scripps Institution for Oceanography" and error no scientist would make), the rough equivalent of washing the test tubes.

Weaseling still? Attacking an author rather than the sources(that aren’t of his own) the author provided?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is creationism?

Earlier you on, you described accidents or chance in an exact same way creationism can be described. Why turn a blind eye to one?

When we get back to the intital causes and information in everything performing its intent.... your beliefs are as equal and as valid as anyone else’s.

Creationism is in essence a belief in magic that is unsupported by evidence. You appear to have misunderstood a prior post of mine. I have no clue as to what you are speaking of.

What do you wish to discuss? So far you have failed to find valid support for any of your claims.

Relying on non-experts for "evidence" only leads to others laughing at your arguments. In the world of science peer review is how new ideas are presented. It is a bit of an arduous process to go through, but professionals do it all of the time. When people avoid peer review it should be taken as a warning. For example the chemists that came up with "cold fusion" avoided peer review. They contacted the press and made their "discovery" known without presenting it to their peers for review. Please note, going through peer review does not guarantee that an idea is right. But avoiding peer review is almost a sure sign that an idea is wrong.

 

[Profound Realization]

When did I ever dodge your questions? And no, that is a simple observation. No more.

When you constantly accusing others of "weaeling" when you use bogus sources you are in no position to complain.


Too long, didn't read. I saw that you claimed you had "nothing to lose". And that is true. When you have already lost there is "nothing to lose".

You dodge what you can’t answer with weasel tactics: “the questions are too broad and you had an assumption.” “Try again.” “Speak in English.” Rather than attempt to understand the question if you didn’t, or provide the assumption.... you use irrelevant weasel tactics.

Talk is cheap, elaborate on which sources are bogus.

When you demand that you’ve won, there is nothing left to discuss. Just continue to sit on your high throne.

There is no fruit or profit talking to you. Take care.

 

[Profound Realization]

Creationism is in essence a belief in magic that is unsupported by evidence. You appear to have misunderstood a prior post of mine. I have no clue as to what you are speaking of.

What do you wish to discuss? So far you have failed to find valid support for any of your claims.

Relying on non-experts for "evidence" only leads to others laughing at your arguments. In the world of science peer review is how new ideas are presented. It is a bit of an arduous process to go through, but professionals do it all of the time. When people avoid peer review it should be taken as a warning. For example the chemists that came up with "cold fusion" avoided peer review. They contacted the press and made their "discovery" known without presenting it to their peers for review. Please note, going through peer review does not guarantee that an idea is right. But avoiding peer review is almost a sure sign that an idea is wrong.

Then, accidentalism/chancalism is also a belief in magic with no evidence.

A non-expert giving expert sources.

The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists Peer review is a joke.

This is the last I will say. Take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If evidence has a nature, I already asked you to clarify it’s nature/characteristics/attributes in your own interpretation.

All of this stuff of me not understanding, evidence on your side, judges in court are irrelevant.

Let's deal with your last claim first. No, it is not irrelevant. It demonstrates that in the real world your side loses where it counts. You should know the reason why.

But let's start with scientific evidence. I already supported this with numerous sources, but for simplicity I am going to use just Wikipedia right now:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

(bolding is mine)

If there is anything that you have problems with I will gladly go over it. The important point is that to even claim one has scientific evidence one must first have a testable model. If your model is not testable it has no evidence by definition. From my experience creationists are not willing to form a testable model. All that creationists can come up with is an ad hoc explanation and that is worthless in the world of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You dodge what you can’t answer with weasel tactics: “the questions are too broad and you had an assumption.” “Try again.” “Speak in English.” Rather than attempt to understand the question if you didn’t, or provide the assumption.... you use irrelevant weasel tactics.

Talk is cheap, elaborate on which sources are bogus.

When you demand that you’ve won, there is nothing left to discuss. Just continue to sit on your high throne.

There is no fruit or profit talking to you. Take care.

Wrong again. That was an explanation of what was wrong with your question. You "weaseled" by not trying to ask your question properly.

Let me help you. Leading questions are not proper questions. You can't have an assumption buried in your question. Questions need to be properly focused.

And so far it appears that you can dish out the personal attacks but you complain when you perceive one being used against you. Just focus on the topic at hand and there should be no problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then, accidentalism/chancalism is also a belief in magic with no evidence.[/quoite]

Nope, and now you are using a strawman argument.

A non-expert giving expert sources.

The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists Peer review is a joke.

This is the last I will say. Take care.

Now that is weaseling on your part. Peer review is not perfect, but it is still the best method we have at arriving at answers to scientific problems. If all you can do is complain but can't find a solution then your complaints are without merit.


Just think if "Peer review is a joke" then those that avoid it are even worse. You harm your own argument by making such a claim.

 

[Sapiens]

Weaseling still? Attacking an author rather than the sources(that aren’t of his own) the author provided?

I point you to Proverbs 13:20, remember, when you lie with dogs you get up with fleas. That's the way it is.

You cited Luskin in a classic fallacy of an appeal to authority. I impeached him thus revealing your fallacy and your bad judgement in citing him as an authority. Demonstrating that you are wrong is different from making a personal attack, but you may not understand that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Weaseling still? Attacking an author rather than the sources(that aren’t of his own) the author provided?

What "sources" did Luskin provide? He openly lied in that video. He was caught claiming that "intelligent design" is not creationism. ID was developed at the Discovery Institute. It was shown in the Dove trial to be merely creationism in a cheap lab coat.

 

[Profound Realization]

I point you to Proverbs 13:20, remember, when you lie with dogs you get up with fleas. That's the way it is.

You can quote “scriptural” texts as you’d like, but your own interpretation as to what is dogma, and/or who are the dogs, as well as the wise, and fleas, are just that.. your own interpretation. That’s the way that it is. A dog appears to be anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who provides sources that disagree with you.

It amazes that you have managed to make this all about attacking an author rather than focusing on the sources provided that aren’t the authors.

 

[Profound Realization]

Now that is weaseling on your part. Peer review is not perfect, but it is still the best method we have at arriving at answers to scientific problems. If all you can do is complain but can't find a solution then your complaints are without merit.


Just think if "Peer review is a joke" then those that avoid it are even worse. You harm your own argument by making such a claim.

You already anointed yourself as winner and anyone who disagree with you a loser. There is nothing more to discuss with you. Enjoy your rewards.

 

[Sapiens]

You can quote “scriptural” texts as you’d like, but your own interpretation as to what is dogma, and/or who are the dogs, as well as the wise, and fleas, are just that.. your own interpretation. That’s the way that it is. A dog appears to be anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who provides sources that disagree with you.

It amazes that you have managed to make this all about attacking an author rather than focusing on the sources provided that aren’t the authors.

You are the one who made it about the author, you attempted to introduce him as an authority supporting your claim. Now, exposed and flopping about, you are trying to muddy the water. Sucks for you, eh?

 

[Profound Realization]

You are the one who made it about the author, you attempted to introduce him as an authority supporting your claim. Now, exposed and flopping about, you are trying to muddy the water. Sucks for you, eh?

Once again, if you have issues with the sources presented within the link, feel free to address.

All of these words of yours have been irrelevant and pure examples of an ad hominem. A weasel and dishonest way of communication. You’ve been exposed of this and are trying to hang on to your reputation by presenting more irrelevant words. The only ones you appeal to are of your own mental kind, who use the same weasel methods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You already anointed yourself as winner and anyone who disagree with you a loser. There is nothing more to discuss with you. Enjoy your rewards.

It is obvious to anyone that you lost. I offered to help you. You only confirmed my claim of cowardice. If you knew that you were right you would have no problem in discussing the nature of evidence. You made personal attacks against others and then had the gall to call corrections of your errors personal attacks.

The offer is still open. I will still help you if you want it. Otherwise I will merely continue to correct your gross and obvious errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, if you have issues with the sources presented within the link, feel free to address.

All of these words of yours have been irrelevant and pure examples of an ad hominem. A weasel and dishonest way of communication. You’ve been exposed of this and are trying to hang on to your reputation by presenting more irrelevant words. The only ones you appeal to are of your own mental kind, who use the same weasel methods.

More personal attacks from the person that is too ready to accuse others of the same.

By the way, he is right. If you try to use someone as an authority you have no grounds for complaint when he is shown not to be an authority. I linked and quoted his own CV to show that he needs to support his claims. His claims without support are no more valid than mine without support. The difference between Luskin and I is that I know that I am not an authority and I will find valid sources to support my claims. Luskin, not so much.

 

[Sapiens]

Once again, if you have issues with the sources presented within the link, feel free to address.

All of these words of yours have been irrelevant and pure examples of an ad hominem. A weasel and dishonest way of communication. You’ve been exposed of this and are trying to hang on to your reputation by presenting more irrelevant words. The only ones you appeal to are of your own mental kind, who use the same weasel methods.

I do not know why you find the rules of that game so hard to understand. You issued an appeal to authority. Your authority was shown to be a fraud. At that point an adult would say, "sorry, thanks" and appeal to a different and hopefully better authority. Instead you launch into rather ugly personal attacks. Bad show old man, bad show.

 

[Profound Realization]

I do not know why you find the rules of that game so hard to understand. You issued an appeal to authority. Your authority was shown to be a fraud. At that point an adult would say, "sorry, thanks" and appeal to a different and hopefully better authority. Instead you launch into rather ugly personal attacks. Bad show old man, bad show.

What great lengths you’re willing to go to try and preserve your ego.
First, a classic example of an ad hominem on 2 people. (For no reason.)
Second, demeaning another as beneath you and unworthy just because they disagree with you.
Third, trying to grasp at straws using a false appeal to authority example.
Fourth, trying to instill your own control and rules and authority over others. Who are you?

Here are the references cited in the link which were deferred to. Once again, everything you’ve said has had zero relevance to anything.
References Cited:
[1.] James Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla(University of Chicago Press, 2004), p. 35.
[2.] Charles Marshall, “Explaining the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ of Animals,” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34 (2006):355-384.
[3.] Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions (W. H. Freeman, 1992), p. 36.
[4.] Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary explosions and the phylogenetic fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 (April, 1998): 151-156.
[5.] Andrew H. Knoll, and Sean B. Carroll, “Early animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology,” Science, 284 (June 25, 1999): 2129-2136 (internal citations omitted).
[6.] Vicki Pearse, John Pearse, Mildred Buchsbaum, and Ralph Buchsbaum. Living Invertebrates (Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1987), , p. 764.
[7.] James W. Valentine, D. Jablonski, Doug H. Erwin, “Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, 126 (1999): 851-859 (internal citations omitted).
[8.] Richard Fortey, “Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?,” Science, 293 (July 20, 2001): 438-439 (emphases added).
[9.] Maximilian J. Telford, Sarah J. Bourlat, Andrew Economou, Daniel Papillon and Omar Rota-Stabelli, “The evolution of the Ecdysozoa,” Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363 (2008): 1529-1537.
[10.] This is another good example where the molecular data conflicts with morphological data. As Graham Budd explains, if arthropods are distantly related to annelids, “then the striking resemblance of such arthropod systems to (for example) those of annelids would be a convergence, which may be considered by some to be unlikely.” See Graham E. Budd, “Tardigrades as ‘Stem-Group Arthropods’: The Evidence from the Cambrian Fauna,” Zoologischer Anzeiger: A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 240 (2001): 265-279 (internal citations omitted). Or as another paper put it, the molecular data imply “the closest relatives of panarthropods are not segmented, coelomate animals like annelids, but rather are nonsegmented, mostly acoelomateworms with terminal mouth.” Gregory D. Edgecombe, “Palaeontological and Molecular Evidence Linking Arthropods, Onychophorans, and other Ecdysozoa,” Evo Edu Outreach (2009) 2:178-190. Since arthropods are segmented and coelomate animals, this finding is most surprising.
[11.] Jianni Liu, Degan Shu, Jian Han, Zhifei Zhang, Xingliang Zhang, “Origin, diversification, and relationships of Cambrian lobopods,” Gondwana Research, 14 (2008): 277-283.
[12.] Graham E. Budd, “Tardigrades as ‘Stem-Group Arthropods’: The Evidence from the Cambrian Fauna,” Zoologischer Anzeiger: A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 240 (2001): 265-279.
[13.] Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (2000):27-32 (internal citations removed).
[14.] James W. Valentine, David Jablonski and Douglas H. Erwin, “Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion,” Development, 126 (1999): 851-859.
[15.] Philippe Janvier, “Catching the first fish,” Nature, 402 (November 4, 1999): 21-22 (emphasis added).
[16.] Gregory A. Wray, Jeffrey S. Levinton, Leo H. Shapiro, “Molecular Evidence for Deep Precambrian Divergences Among Metazoan Phyla,” Science, 274:568-573 (October 25, 1996) (internal citations removed) (emphases added.)
[17.] Douglas H. Erwin, Marc Laflamme, Sarah M. Tweedt, Erik A. Sperling, Davide Pisani, Kevin J. Peterson, “The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals,” Science, 334 (November 25, 2011): 1091-1097 (internal citations removed) (emphases added).
[18.] Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion,” BioEssays, 31 (1009): 736-747 (internal citations removed) (emphasis added).
[19.] Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, and Paul Chien, “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang,” Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003).
[20.] E�rs Szathm�ry, “When the means do not justify the end, Book review of Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species by Jeffrey H. Schwartz,” Nature, 399 (June 24, 1999): 745-746.
[21.] Ibid.
[22.] See Hopi E. Hoekstra and Jerry A. Coyne, “The Locus of Evolution: Evo Devo and the Genetics of Adaptation,” Evolution, 61-5 (2007): 995-1016.
[23.] See for example, Benjamin Prud’homme, Nicolas Gompel, and Sean B. Carroll, “Emerging principles of regulatory evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104 (May 15, 2007): 8605-8612.
[24.] Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion,” BioEssays, 31 (1009): 736-747 (internal citations removed).
[25.] Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), 408-409.
[26.] Richard M. Bateman, Peter R. Crane, William A. DiMichele, Paul R. Kenrick, Nick P. Rowe, Thomas Speck, and William E. Stein, “Early Evolution of Land Plants: Phylogeny, Physiology, and Ecology of the Primary Terrestrial Radiation,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29 (1998): 263-292.
[27.] See Stefanie De Bodt, Steven Maere, and Yves Van de Peer, “Genome duplication and the origin of angiosperms,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20 (2005): 591-597. (“Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record… with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80-90 million years before their appearance”).
[28.] Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), 65.
[29.] See Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 (April, 1998): 151-156; Frank B. Gill, Ornithology, 3rd ed. (New York: W.H. Freeman, 2007), 42.
[30.] See “New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution,” University of Michigan News Service (January 10, 2000).

 

[Profound Realization]

More personal attacks from the person that is too ready to accuse others of the same.

By the way, he is right. If you try to use someone as an authority you have no grounds for complaint when he is shown not to be an authority. I linked and quoted his own CV to show that he needs to support his claims. His claims without support are no more valid than mine without support. The difference between Luskin and I is that I know that I am not an authority and I will find valid sources to support my claims. Luskin, not so much.

References Cited:
[1.] James Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla(University of Chicago Press, 2004), p. 35.
[2.] Charles Marshall, “Explaining the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ of Animals,” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34 (2006):355-384.
[3.] Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions (W. H. Freeman, 1992), p. 36.
[4.] Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary explosions and the phylogenetic fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 (April, 1998): 151-156.
[5.] Andrew H. Knoll, and Sean B. Carroll, “Early animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology,” Science, 284 (June 25, 1999): 2129-2136 (internal citations omitted).
[6.] Vicki Pearse, John Pearse, Mildred Buchsbaum, and Ralph Buchsbaum. Living Invertebrates (Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1987), , p. 764.
[7.] James W. Valentine, D. Jablonski, Doug H. Erwin, “Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, 126 (1999): 851-859 (internal citations omitted).
[8.] Richard Fortey, “Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?,” Science, 293 (July 20, 2001): 438-439 (emphases added).
[9.] Maximilian J. Telford, Sarah J. Bourlat, Andrew Economou, Daniel Papillon and Omar Rota-Stabelli, “The evolution of the Ecdysozoa,” Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363 (2008): 1529-1537.
[10.] This is another good example where the molecular data conflicts with morphological data. As Graham Budd explains, if arthropods are distantly related to annelids, “then the striking resemblance of such arthropod systems to (for example) those of annelids would be a convergence, which may be considered by some to be unlikely.” See Graham E. Budd, “Tardigrades as ‘Stem-Group Arthropods’: The Evidence from the Cambrian Fauna,” Zoologischer Anzeiger: A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 240 (2001): 265-279 (internal citations omitted). Or as another paper put it, the molecular data imply “the closest relatives of panarthropods are not segmented, coelomate animals like annelids, but rather are nonsegmented, mostly acoelomateworms with terminal mouth.” Gregory D. Edgecombe, “Palaeontological and Molecular Evidence Linking Arthropods, Onychophorans, and other Ecdysozoa,” Evo Edu Outreach (2009) 2:178-190. Since arthropods are segmented and coelomate animals, this finding is most surprising.
[11.] Jianni Liu, Degan Shu, Jian Han, Zhifei Zhang, Xingliang Zhang, “Origin, diversification, and relationships of Cambrian lobopods,” Gondwana Research, 14 (2008): 277-283.
[12.] Graham E. Budd, “Tardigrades as ‘Stem-Group Arthropods’: The Evidence from the Cambrian Fauna,” Zoologischer Anzeiger: A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 240 (2001): 265-279.
[13.] Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (2000):27-32 (internal citations removed).
[14.] James W. Valentine, David Jablonski and Douglas H. Erwin, “Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion,” Development, 126 (1999): 851-859.
[15.] Philippe Janvier, “Catching the first fish,” Nature, 402 (November 4, 1999): 21-22 (emphasis added).
[16.] Gregory A. Wray, Jeffrey S. Levinton, Leo H. Shapiro, “Molecular Evidence for Deep Precambrian Divergences Among Metazoan Phyla,” Science, 274:568-573 (October 25, 1996) (internal citations removed) (emphases added.)
[17.] Douglas H. Erwin, Marc Laflamme, Sarah M. Tweedt, Erik A. Sperling, Davide Pisani, Kevin J. Peterson, “The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals,” Science, 334 (November 25, 2011): 1091-1097 (internal citations removed) (emphases added).
[18.] Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion,” BioEssays, 31 (1009): 736-747 (internal citations removed) (emphasis added).
[19.] Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, and Paul Chien, “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang,” Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003).
[20.] E�rs Szathm�ry, “When the means do not justify the end, Book review of Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species by Jeffrey H. Schwartz,” Nature, 399 (June 24, 1999): 745-746.
[21.] Ibid.
[22.] See Hopi E. Hoekstra and Jerry A. Coyne, “The Locus of Evolution: Evo Devo and the Genetics of Adaptation,” Evolution, 61-5 (2007): 995-1016.
[23.] See for example, Benjamin Prud’homme, Nicolas Gompel, and Sean B. Carroll, “Emerging principles of regulatory evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104 (May 15, 2007): 8605-8612.
[24.] Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion,” BioEssays, 31 (1009): 736-747 (internal citations removed).
[25.] Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), 408-409.
[26.] Richard M. Bateman, Peter R. Crane, William A. DiMichele, Paul R. Kenrick, Nick P. Rowe, Thomas Speck, and William E. Stein, “Early Evolution of Land Plants: Phylogeny, Physiology, and Ecology of the Primary Terrestrial Radiation,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29 (1998): 263-292.
[27.] See Stefanie De Bodt, Steven Maere, and Yves Van de Peer, “Genome duplication and the origin of angiosperms,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20 (2005): 591-597. (“Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record… with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80-90 million years before their appearance”).
[28.] Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), 65.
[29.] See Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 (April, 1998): 151-156; Frank B. Gill, Ornithology, 3rd ed. (New York: W.H. Freeman, 2007), 42.
[30.] See “New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution,” University of Michigan News Service (January 10, 2000).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'm curious.....why do you not debate the YEC's here? I would think your disagreement with them is more significant than the one you have with us science advocates. After all, your disagreement with YECs is not just about science but is also about scripture, which I would think is more important.

You mean, you can’t figure this out? Are you serious?

They may be advocating an incorrect understanding of Genesis 1, but at least they believe in the Bible, and in its Author as our God and Creator.

When we as individual theists look at the myriads of species in the animal and plant kingdoms (or any of the six), observe the symbiosis between and the inherent instinct of living organisms, and think about its DNA that contains a dual-language information system detected within each cell structure...we marvel at the design, and the intelligent Designer who programmed and installed the extremely complex information in each living cell!
Because we accurately conclude that information, which creates purpose, order and function, always comes from an intelligent source! — Hebrews 4:5

Evolution — CD evolution, that is — claims these organisms aren’t really designed, not by an Intelligent Source; it all appeared by a fortunate series of mindless, undirected processes.

CD therefore tries to remove Jehovah God and His Word completely out of the picture!

But you’re right, to a point....false religious teachings, supposedly based on the Bible, can turn thinking people away, too. Like hellfire. (Which makes God out to be a monster.) And the Trinity “mystery” (Who wants to worship a God you can’t understand?) I’ve come to learn that the Bible doesn’t teach those things.

And hypocrisy among Christendom’s / all religions’ leaders has the same effect.

I may have asked you this, but can’t remember: do you deny that paranormal activity exists? Do you think it’s all (spirit mediums, ouija board experiences) fake?

EDIT: I would like to add something. I love science, especially astronomy and the Earth sciences, like geology, I consider myself an advocate of accurate science, which to me, doesn’t include descent with modification (CD).