Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by alex.tsakiris, Nov 1, 2013.
The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang
by Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, and Paul Chien, 2004
80 pages, freely available on-line
Oh sweet mother, it's Casey Luskin.
Listening . . .
At 1:30; nothing so far.
At 3:00; nothing so far.
At 5:00; nothing so far.
Not even any admission of the trickiness of delimiting the Cambrian explosion.
No explanation of how various body plans might emerge.
At 6:15; nothing so far.
Meyer offered no hypothesis. What are you talking about?
To the underlined. Yes, it is comforting.
Your a sniveling coward who has been dodging my conversations. I hope you don't get away with that
Once a poster gets a reputation for crying off to the mods, he may find conversations harder to come by.
Cry me a river ghost, you yourself hide behind anonymity to celebrate someone's death.
Secondly, what do people think matter is exactly these days? Billiard balls?
I'll tell you what. I'm going to stop coming to the forum, and you can talk about suicide all you like.
I'm assuming Meyer believes proliferating body morphology over a relatively short time would require a trigger that isn't suggestive of slow burn natural selection. I have to confess this stuff doesn't cause me to lose sleep. It's all a bit steam punk. Guys with stove pipe hats and ZZ Top beards arguing about monkeys doesn't float my ark.
Wait, are you criticizing ZZ Top? I certainly hope not!
In order to make his argument seem more compelling, Meyer has ignored everything that happened before some arbitrary point in the Cambrian. He also completely ignores the question of exactly how much change was required to allow for the new body designs that appeared. Plenty of scientists have commented on this.
No, if you question aspects of evolutionary theory, and at the end attach the unwarranted conclusion "therefore god dit it", then you are a creationist.
There is plenty of room for debate and legitimate controversie in evolutionary biology without having to go to supernatural explanations.
No, people who think the universe best is described by scientific naturalism see that as the outcome of science.
People who adhere to ID/creationism choose an outcome and try to adapt science to it.
I do not see anything analogous to the wedge strategy in science, do you?
If leprechauns are real, there will be a big chunk of science to be had to. To begin with the scientific evidence they exist, the same goes for a creator.
Damn, I nearly wasted two minutes replying to your question until I read that.
What is wrong with this statement
as an analogy to your statement
They are both perfectly crumulent tautologies, they are structurally exactly the same.
If something goes from having no evidence to having evidence beyond any serious doubt, it must involve interesting science.
It may be that you find that one proposition is more plausible, but that does not change the similarity of both statements.
Any post containing leprechauns and God in the same paragraph forfeits any right to further attention. No amount of crumulent tautologies can recover the deficit in literary imagination.
How about fairies and God?
The eleventh commandment?
Why would I be in the other subforums? I have no spiritual experiences to account for, and speculation at this point is 95% mental masturbation. Notice how my posts are confined to this subforum and 'other stuff', I rarely, if at all ever, contribute to those forums.
Ghost's arguments aren't worth engaging because I don't for a second consider 95% of them to be honest. They're just regurgitated caricatures of old, tired arguments. Like fine tuning.
Join us, Iyace. Join us.
Nah. The difference is that I don't immediately reject those experiences and speculations because I haven't experienced or thought about them. They may be valid, for all I know. I'm not going to interrupt their experiences and speculation ( unlike you guys ) in a subforum where they can feel comfortable doing so. If they wanted that conversation, they'd come to this subforum.
That's the reason I'm not banned in the other sub-forums. That's the reason you guys are.
Separate names with a comma.