OT: Stockwell Day: Adam and Eve were real people and Humans roamed the Earth at the same time as dinosaurs
David Migicovsky
Claims there is scientific backing
Tonda MacCharles
OTTAWA BUREAU
REGINA - Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day says he believes in the
biblical version of how the Earth was created.
And he says public schools should be ``open'' to teaching creationism as
well as evolution.
``There is scientific support for both creationism and evolution,'' Day
said yesterday in a written statement after first insisting his religious
views are his own business.
``I don't think I should have to debate the interpretation of Genesis any
more than I would expect Jean Chrétien or Joe Clark to have to debate the
Catholic teachings'' on Immaculate Conception.
The Immaculate Conception is the belief that the Virgin Mary was born
without original sin.
Alliance spokesman Phil von Finckenstein told reporters Day ``doesn't have
any problem with the theory of evolution.''
``He believes the theory of evolution should be taught in schools, but we
should be open to other ones as well.''
Day's controversial views were injected into the campaign by an account of
his unguarded remarks about evolution and creationism at Alberta's Red Deer
College in January, 1997.
Pliny Hayes, an instructor in cell biology, took notes at the address given
to college students and staff as part of Christian Awareness Week.
He said in an interview yesterday that Day, then Alberta treasurer,
explicitly stated that he believed:
The Earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago.
Humans roamed the Earth at the same time as dinosaurs.
Adam and Eve were real people.
Creationism is as valid as evolution and should be taught in schools.
Scientists around the world overwhelmingly dismiss these creationist ideas
as lacking any empirical basis.
By contrast, evidence from several independent tests points to the Earth
forming roughly 4.6 billion years ago. Other scientific findings put the
disappearance of dinosaurs 65 million years ago and the earliest hominoids
emerging a mere four million years ago.
Von Finckenstein said Day would not get involved in what curriculum should
be taught, but rather would leave the decision regarding curriculum up to
the provinces, because education is a provincial jurisdiction.
As for whether Day specifically holds those views, von Finckenstein said
Day's comment on creationism ``speaks for itself.''
Earlier, Day had refused to discuss his personal beliefs.
``I don't think the particular beliefs of an individual (are relevant) in
public policy any more than asking a Roman Catholic what their belief is
related to the Virgin Mary, any more than asking somebody who believes that
Krishna came down from heaven,'' Day said.
Asked directly if he holds those views and whether he felt creationism
should be taught in public schools, Day refused to answer, saying only that
such questions had been ``dealt with months and months ago.''
``I call yellow journalism the type of journalism that dredges up things
that have been dealt with a long time ago and doesn't give the person (a
chance) to respond at the time in the same piece. It's no good the day
after. Unfortunately this kind of thing happens in journalism and I would
expect a higher degree of professionalism.''
Day, who has said throughout the campaign that Canadians would like him
once they got to know him, refused to answer further questions.
Von Finckenstein, Day's spokesman, said Day's opinion throughout the
Alliance leadership campaign, and through the election campaign, is that
his personal views are just that, and never affected public policy when he
was an Alberta cabinet minister.
However, Day did try to influence public policy on education curriculum
before he entered politics in Alberta. He fought to defend the right of his
community's Christian school to set its own curriculum.
In an interview with The Star's Peter Calamai, Pliny Hayes said Day was
speaking at Red Deer College without notes and had to cram his creationism
remarks into a final 10 minutes after he had devoted most of the hour-long
address to a history of Christianity in Alberta.
An audience member asked Day to talk about evolution because that was the
promised topic.
Day's religious views also clashed with orthodox education in the early
1980s when he was administrator of the Christian Training Centre, a
Pentecostal school in Bentley, Alta.
Day led a campaign to persuade the provincial government to accept such
schools - and their religious curriculum - as legitimate.
Appearing in 1984 before a provincial committee looking into the issue, Day
also argued that the schools didn't need to be approved by the province's
inspectors.
``God's law is clear. Standards of education are not set by government, but
by God, the Bible, the home and the school,'' he told the committee.
Day has since said that he was merely reflecting the position of the
Christian schools at the time, doing his duty as secretary-treasurer of
their lobby group.
New Democrat Leader Alexa McDonough told reporters in Toronto that Day's
religious views are a valid subject of inquiry.
``I think when you see the kind of super-religiosity and the kind of
picking and choosing of principles that seem to characterize the Alliance
leader, that people are right to examine very closely what those principles
are, what those values are that he holds dear and what the contradictions
are between what he spouts and what he practises.''
>>David ========>
--
David Migicovsky, Evil Overlord of ACF
Our new ad-free home: A_C_F-s...@topica.com
d m i g i c o v at n e w s c e n e dot c o m
Wull
Benedictine monastery, concerning evolution and creationism.
Most of the priests that I was acquainted with were scientists.
All were of the opinion that evolution was the path to modern human beings. And
they had to reconcile their scientific beliefs with their religious beliefs.
They did not feel than any ape had offspring that were humans.
They did not feel that G_D waved a magic wand and changed any apes into humans.
They did align their religion with evolution (the path used by G_D ) by
rationalizing that when the
supreme being was satisfied with his models in the evolutionary path, he then
instilled souls in the beings, which was the creationist part of the historic
episode. And there was not just two people but a group of beings which emerged
as the humans . They in turn proceeded to continue to evolve again as the
evolutionary story indicates, but now they had immortal souls.
I fail to see any comparison of creationism/evolution having any relevance to
the *Immaculate Conception* dogma. which was a rationalization that developed
about 1800/1900 years after the event.
Wull
David Migicovsky wrote:
> <big snip>By contrast, evidence from several independent tests points to the
David Migicovsky
>Here is what was explained to me at the college I attended which was a
>Benedictine monastery, concerning evolution and creationism.
>
>Most of the priests that I was acquainted with were scientists.
>All were of the opinion that evolution was the path to modern human
>beings. And they had to reconcile their scientific beliefs with their
>religious beliefs.
This is basically what separates mainstream religion from fundamentalism
and other cults.
The Church, for all its faults, does bow to the inevitable. The Earth is
*not* a few thousand years old, God did *not* create it in 6 days, and
we're *not* descended from the offspring of one man and his female clone.
As my ex explained it from his high school religion classes (Catholic
school), the priests said, "it's a fairy tale for children." They realized
that clinging to this would drive any halfway intelligent person from the
Church, leaving it with simpletons and out-and-out liars -- a sane,
informed, thinking human being simply can't believe such things anymore.
>They did not feel than any ape had offspring that were humans.
>They did not feel that G_D waved a magic wand and changed any apes into
>humans.
But you can easily wave a six-pack of Bud around and change some humans
into apes. :)
>I fail to see any comparison of creationism/evolution having any
>relevance to the *Immaculate Conception* dogma. which was a
>rationalization that developed about 1800/1900 years after the event.
>
I guess the comparison is in that both ideas fly in the face of current
scientific knowledge. However, they're not comparable.
Both are possible if one accepts that God can do anything He wants. His
reasons for sending His son to us are logical. Asking us to accept that God
has been creating a massively deceptive fossil record to make us unaware of
the world's history is quite another. What kind of God would do that?
Whether you believe in the Immaculate Conception or not, no one in the
Church is advocating that it be taught in public school as scientific fact.
Canada, BTW, is roughly 50% Catholic. I'd say that remark would hurt him,
but I think most already knew that fundies are no friends to Catholics.
>>David ========>
--
David Migicovsky
mm
> Wull spread those long luscious legs and gave birth to...
> The Church, for all its faults, does bow to the inevitable. The Earth is
> *not* a few thousand years old,
The bible does not state that
>God did *not* create it in 6 days, and
Not is 6 literal days. who is to say how long the 'days' were.
Elsewhere in the bible there is a comparison between a day in heaven to
a thousand years on earth (note only a comparison).
> we're *not* descended from the offspring of one man and his female clone.
> As my ex explained it from his high school religion classes (Catholic
> school), the priests said, "it's a fairy tale for children." They realized
> that clinging to this would drive any halfway intelligent person from the
> Church, leaving it with simpletons and out-and-out liars -- a sane,
> informed, thinking human being simply can't believe such things anymore.
Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstien would disagree with you on that one.
> but I think most already knew that fundies are no friends to Catholics.
>>>David ========>
> --
> David Migicovsky
David Migicovsky
Have you not yet clued in that no matter how many times you change your
name I am *never* going to have a discussion with you on any topic?
You'd think folks at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology would be a
tad less dim.
jaro...@my-deja.com
dmig...@ihavenoname.com.see.sig (David Migicovsky) wrote:
> Day says he believes biblical story of creation
> Claims there is scientific backing
> Tonda MacCharles
> OTTAWA BUREAU
>
> REGINA - Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day says he believes in the
> biblical version of how the Earth was created.
>
> And he says public schools should be ``open'' to teaching creationism as
> well as evolution.
>
> ``There is scientific support for both creationism and evolution,'' Day
> said yesterday in a written statement after first insisting his religious
> views are his own business.
>
> ``I don't think I should have to debate the interpretation of Genesis any
> more than I would expect Jean Chrétien or Joe Clark to have to debate the
> Catholic teachings'' on Immaculate Conception.
*
The Globe and Mail, Friday, November 17, 2000
In defence of creationism
Don't be quick to condemn Stockwell Day for his belief in creationism,
says JONATHAN WELLS. There's lots of evidence of an intelligent hand at
work
By Jonathan Wells
Until recently, many people thought the debate over Darwinian evolution
was confined mainly to the Bible belt of the United States. But on
Wednesday, Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day remarked that, "There
is scientific support for both creationism and evolution." He and other
Alliance members have supported teaching alternatives to Darwinism in
Canadian schools. There has been a predictable knee-jerk public and
media backlash, but instead of rushing to condemn Mr. Day, Canadians
should be having an open discussion about alternatives to Darwinism.
According to the prevailing view, Darwin's theory is supported by
overwhelming evidence and accepted by all knowledgeable biologists. It
is opposed only by ignorant fundamentalists, who prefer a literal
interpretation of Genesis to the clear findings of modern science.
This stereotype is seriously misleading. The truth is that Darwinian
evolution is in deep trouble with the scientific community, and a
growing number of scientists now consider it inadequate as an
explanation for the origin and history of life.
Darwin's theory is that all living things are related by descent from a
common ancestor. The differences among them, according to the theory,
were produced by natural selection (survival of the fittest), acting on
random variations. High school students are taught that the first part
of this theory (common ancestry) is a scientific fact, while the second
part (natural selection acting on random variations) is a well-supported
theory.
But most biology textbooks neglect to inform students that all the major
groups of animals appeared at about the same time, in a geological
period known as the Cambrian, rather than diverging from a common
ancestor, as evolution implies. Darwin knew about this, and considered
it a "serious" problem for his theory, but he thought that the problem
would go away as more fossils were found. Yet continued fossil
collecting has only made the problem worse, and most experts now think
the "Cambrian explosion" was even more dramatic than Darwin realized.
Some call it biology's "big bang."
Considering this, it seems reasonable to conclude that the common
ancestry of all living things is not necessarily a fact. It doesn't even
look like a well-supported hypothesis.
As for Darwin's mechanism of natural selection acting on random
variations: No one doubts that this occurs, though its observed effects
are trivial. The classic textbook example involves light- and dark-
coloured moths. Students are taught that since well-camouflaged moths
are less likely to be eaten by predatory birds, dark moths become more
plentiful in polluted woodlands where tree trunks have been darkened by
soot.
Even if this is true, a growing number of biologists question whether it
can account for the major changes we see in the history of life.
At the very least, our students deserve to be taught the truth about the
so-called "evidence" for Darwinian evolution. They also deserve to hear
about alternative theories.
Despite the stereotype that the only alternative to Darwinian evolution
is a literal interpretation of Genesis, there are other options --
including what many U.S. scientists refer to as "intelligent-design
theory."
According to intelligent-design theory, some features of living things
cannot be explained as products of law and chance, but could have been
produced only by an intelligent designer.
Baylor University mathematician William Dembski has formalized this
argument in a 1998 book, The Design Inference, published by Cambridge
University Press. Mr. Dembski argues that we always infer design when we
encounter "specified complexity" -- by which he means something that is
very unlikely (complex) that also conforms to an independent pattern
(specification).
For example, suppose that a person drops a handful of small stones on
the ground. The arrangement formed by those stones will be quite complex
-- it is very unlikely that the same pattern would result if the action
were repeated.
Yet the complexity would not lead to an inference that the pattern was
designed. On the other hand, if those same stones were arranged on the
ground in letters and words, spelling out a Shakespearean sonnet, a
person would reasonably infer design.
Mr. Dembski argues that when this concept of specified complexity is
applied to living things, it leads to the inference that some aspects of
them are designed. He stresses that this is not natural theology -- that
is, he is not arguing that design tells us what we may want to know
about the designer, much less that the designer is the God of the Bible.
Instead, Mr. Dembski argues, the design inference merely opens a door to
possible theological interpretations -- a door that Mr. Day is
comfortable opening.
In a slightly different approach, Lehigh University biochemist Michael
Behe lists features of cells, such as the whip-like flagellum that
propels a bacterium through a fluid, which he calls "irreducibly
complex." Mr. Behe argues that such features could not be assembled
piecemeal through Darwinian natural selection, because they are made of
constituents that have no function until they are all present in the
finished product.
Whether or not intelligent-design theory -- or some other alternative --
will replace Darwinian evolution remains to be seen. But the controversy
is unlikely to go away -- particularly when so much of the "evidence"
for Darwinian evolution is missing.
Should we so quickly dismiss Mr. Day's beliefs? Should Canadian students
continue to be indoctrinated in Darwin's theory by textbooks that ignore
or distort the scientific evidence? Or should they be taught the truth
about the evidence, and permitted to consider alternative theories?
These questions deserve the thoughtful attention of all Canadians
interested in the quality of science education.
Jonathan Wells has a PhD in biology from the University of
California at Berkeley, and is currently a senior fellow at the
Discovery Institute in Seattle. He is the author of Icons of Evolution:
Science or Myth?
Copyright 2000 | The Globe and Mail
http://www.globeandmail.com
*
"Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?" by Jonathan Wells (October 2000)
http://www.iconsofevolution.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Migicovsky
Anyone remember, I don't think it's happened in the last few years, that
whenever anyone, in any newsgroup, was unfortunate enough to mention a
certain fringe organization that advocates cross-generational sex between
men and boys, representatives of that group would immediately descend with
a spirited defense that continued until the newsgroup stopped responding.
Jarofclay (David Buckna) is the same sort of sad, pathetic crusader,
however he does it on behalf of the biblical creation myth.
When he isn't trying to convert Jews, that is:
Friday, June 9th on _Focus on the Family_ radio:
"Jesus Can't Be the Messiah -- or Can He?"
Ever ask yourself this? Stan Telchin did -- as an Orthodox Jew.
(Posted to soc.culture.jewish)
The kind of troll who attacks Paul Simon for saying that man has walked the
earth a few million years in a song. And the kind of troll who crashes into
posts about dinosaur exhibits to spread the creationist bilge that
dinosaurs actually prove their case.
If you want a real good look at the kind of snake-oil these charlatans are
peddling, and the audacity in running for PM displayed by a stupid enough
to believe this bull-puckey.
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/dino_with_adam.jpg
Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden
In the original Creation dinosaurs were certainly not vicious or
troublesome. When God finished making the animals He said they were all
"very good." What colors were they? How different are the skeletons of
dinosaurs we find killed by the Flood and those first dinosaurs created by
God? Unfortunately, no one knows what Man or dinosaurs (or any other
animals) really looked like when God created them long ago.
Originally, dinosaurs must have been harmless--designed to delight man and
benefit the world, just like all the other animals. When first created, all
dinosaurs ate only plants and fruits.
Dinosaurs in the world after the Flood
After the Flood, dinosaurs and all other animals were made to be afraid of
people (Genesis 9:2). Animals stayed away from people if they could. They
were no longer as trusting and obedient. God probably did this to protect
both animals and people in the world after the Flood. Dinosaurs and Man
probably lived in their own separate areas--just like people and large,
wild animals do today.
The fossil bones, teeth and stomach contents of many large dinosaurs killed
during the Flood have been found. So far, it appears that most dinosaurs
were still harmless plant-eaters at that time--many hundreds of years after
the Fall. They were probably not much different in their ways than a
giraffe or a elephant.
Did any dinosaurs ever become terrible and ferocious?
The answer to this question remains a mystery. At this point, there is no
proof that any of the dinosaurs were as mean and dangerous as shown in most
dinosaur books. It will take many more discoveries before anyone can say
for certain how dinosaurs behaved in the world before the Flood or after.
However it is likely that more people killed dinosaurs than dinosaurs
killed people.
Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were
originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other
animals.
Most of the time we would be inclined to look upon their beliefs with
tolerant bemusement, like flat-earthers.
No matter what flaws may exist in the theory of evolution, their "creation
science" is nothing but a tissue of lies put forward by the same hate-
filled vermin who would like to return the world to the stone age.
Believe what you want, people, but get over this idea that you have the
right to make your religious beliefs the law of the land.
jaded bitch
jaded
I don't recall reading anything about dinosaurs in the Old Testament ...
David Migicovsky wrote:
David Migicovsky
>That picture is too funny! Looks like Adam and the dinosaur are in love.
>
>jaded
>I don't recall reading anything about dinosaurs in the Old Testament ...
>
Silly, secular humanist jaded!
Dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses ancient
names like "behemoth" (beh-HEE-moth) and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly,
gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and
the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles
like the plesiosaurs (PLEE-see-oh-sors) that may have become extinct (died
out).
The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job chapter
40...
"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass
like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of
his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-
knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks
first among the works of God..."
-Job 40:15-19 (NIV)
The book of Job is very old, written after the worldwide flood of Noah's
time and probably about 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God
describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest
dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. It was a gigantic plant-eater
with great muscles and very strong bones. The long Diplodocus had leg bones
so strong that he could have held three others on his back.
The behemoth were not afraid. They did not need to be; they were huge.
Behemoth tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars--
one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world.
After all the behemoth had died out, many people forgot about them.
Dinosaurs were extinct and the fossil skeletons that are in museums today
did not begin to be put together until about 150 years ago. Today, some
people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible
might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals do not have tails
like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees!
Bob
"David Migicovsky" <dmig...@ihavenoname.com.see.sig> wrote in message
news:8FF14C2A6dmigi...@63.209.170.205...
> jaded bitch spread those long luscious legs and gave birth to...
>
> >That picture is too funny! Looks like Adam and the dinosaur are in love.
> >
> >jaded
> >I don't recall reading anything about dinosaurs in the Old Testament ...
> >
>
tails
> like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees!
>
>
>
David Migicovsky
>You are kidding, of course!
*I'm* kidding, but that site I'm quoting that garbage from is on the level
and masquerades as a site with actual information about dinosaurs. You
should see the sections where they talk about how the T-Rex was a vegetarian
(you see, before the flood, no animals killed other animals or humans)
You know, "creationism" isn't something that's been discussed much in
Canada. The more I find out about these whackjobs, the scarier I find them.
I don't know whether "Doris" Day is a psychopath or mind-bogglingly stupid.
But he doesn't belong in any position of authority.
>>David ========>
--
David Migicovsky, Evil Overlord of ACF
Our new ad-free home: A_C_F-s...@topica.com
d m i g i c o v at n e w s c e n e dot c o m
>"David Migicovsky" <dmig...@ihavenoname.com.see.sig> wrote in message
>news:8FF14C2A6dmigi...@63.209.170.205...
>> jaded bitch spread those long luscious legs and gave birth to...
>>
>> >That picture is too funny! Looks like Adam and the dinosaur are in love.
>> >
>> >jaded
>> >I don't recall reading anything about dinosaurs in the Old Testament ...
>> >
>>
>> might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals do not have
>tails
>> like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees!
>>
>>
>>
Keith Littleton
David Buckna, A.K.A. jarofclay, <jaro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8FEE4005Ddmigi...@63.209.170.205>,
>dmig...@ihavenoname.com.see.sig (David Migicovsky) wrote:
>> Day says he believes biblical story of creation
>> Claims there is scientific backing
>> Tonda MacCharles
>> OTTAWA BUREAU
>>
>> REGINA - Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day says he
>>believes in the biblical version of how the Earth was
>>created.
>>
>> And he says public schools should be ``open'' to
>>teaching creationism as well as evolution.
Go see:
http://216.87.9.200/resources/resources/600219726562.asp
>> ``There is scientific support for both creationism
>>and evolution,'' Day said yesterday in a written
>>statement after first insisting his religious views
>>are his own business.
To see how the so-called evidence for creationism stands
up to close examination go to:
http://216.87.9.200/resources/resources/861816406250.asp
http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/
>> ``I don't think I should have to debate the
>>interpretation of Genesis any more than I would
>>expect Jean Chr
tien or Joe Clark to have to debate
>>the Catholic teachings'' on Immaculate Conception.
However, nobody is claiming that the "Immaculate
Conception" is a scientific fact or theory that
should be taught in science class.
>The Globe and Mail, Friday, November 17, 2000
>
>In defence of creationism
>
>Don't be quick to condemn Stockwell Day for his
>belief in creationism, says JONATHAN WELLS. There's
>lots of evidence of an intelligent hand at work
>
>By Jonathan Wells
>
>Until recently, many people thought the debate over
>Darwinian evolution was confined mainly to the Bible
>belt of the United States.
... copyrighted text reprinted without permission
deleted ...
>But most biology textbooks neglect to inform students
>that all the major groups of animals appeared at about
>the same time, in a geological period known as the
>Cambrian, rather than diverging from a common ancestor,
>as evolution implies. Darwin knew about this, and
>considered it a "serious" problem for his theory, but
>he thought that the problem would go away as more
>fossils were found. Yet continued fossil collecting
>has only made the problem worse, and most experts now
>think the "Cambrian explosion" was even more dramatic
>than Darwin realized. Some call it biology's "big bang."
... copyrighted text reprinted without permission
deleted ...
In case of the Cambrian Explosion, as other aspects of
biology, Jonathan Wells is remarkably ill-informed for
someone who claims to have a Ph.D. in biology. He, like
many other anti-evolutionists, is very confused by taking
the metaphors used to describe the "Cambrian explosion"
much too literally. Below is a post by Andrew Macrea that
gives a better perspective on the Cambrian explosion.
Re: Cambrian Explosion
Message ID: <8pisq7$1qe$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>
Date: Sept. 11, 2000
++++++++ start of reposted text +++++++++++++++++
Andrew Macrea wrote:
In article <XBPu5.25826$Zh6....@ralph.vnet.net>
Keith Littleton <litt...@vnet.net> writes:
|Inmessage <39bb2...@news1.prserv.net>
|Author:scott <sc...@home.com> wrote:
|>In <CJwu5.17161$Zh6....@ralph.vnet.net>,
|>Keith Littleton <litt...@vnet.net> writes:
|>>James Acker <jac...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>
|>>In Message <8pb3bl$p89$1...@news.umbc.edu>
|>>>sc...@home.com wrote:
|>>
|>>>15 million years is a long, long time. To try and
|>>>>put in perspective, a normal human lifespan is about
|>>>0.0005% of this length of time.
..
|>So no one would have noticed, had they
|>been there to observe. So what?
|
|The impression that many anti-evolutionists give when
|they talk about the Cambrian explosion as if life had
|exploded like a nuclear bomb with nothing at one point
|and moments later a fire ball of life.
Yes, or like a vertical wall, with no animals on
one side, and all the known phyla on the other, which is
grossly inaccurate. It is more like the steepest part
of a ramp.
|The way that
|many talk about it, they imply that many new types of
|animals were were magically appearing literally overnight.
|People are left thinking had they been there, they would
|have seen trilobites in tidal pools (and the oceans)
|where a week before there had been only blue-green algae
|and two days ago been only Charnia, Arkarua, Dickinsonia,
|Tribrachidium, and Cyclomedusa.
Heh. Many of the depictions fail to mention the
Precambrian metazoan animal fossil evidence, or casually
dismiss them as if it could *all* be attributed to some
non-metazoan animal groups (some of it might be, but not
even the strongest advocate of such an interpretation
suggests it all is -- there is too much evidence to the
contrary) thus leading to the confusion that the start
of the Cambrian marks the start of metazoan animal history.
As we have been discussing, it clearly doesn't.
|Had this happened, then
|evolution would be trouble and some sort of either
|evolution would be trouble and some sort of either
|extraterrestrial or divine intervention might be required.
|Thus, noting the true speed at which change occurred
|during the Cambrian explosion is required. I agree with
|Aker that the rate at which evolution occurred during
|Cambrian explosion is overstated by ant-evolutionists
|either out of wishful thinking or in order to make the
|Cambrian explosion appear as a supernatural event that
|is totally mysterious and unexplainable by naturalistic
|science.
|
|A part of the problem of this debate is that the word
|"explosion" provides a false and easily distorted
|impression of the rapidity of evolution during the
|Cambrian to the lay public. Unfortuantely,
|paleontologists have themselves to blame for using
|inappropriate metaphors in order to dramatize their
|findings top the lay public. In this case, their
|geo-poetics has come back to haunt them.
Yes. Dramatic, popular language is a double-edged sword.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
++++++++ end of reposted text +++++++++++++++++
If either David Buckna and Dr. Wells would take the
time to learn something about what they are talking
about, they would find that the various phyla
actually appeared over a 90 million year period
with the most rapid diversification and creation
of new phyla occurring during the Cambrian. Glen
Morton, an evangelical Christian, has posted a
timeline of the appearance of different animals
of which Buckna and Wells are unaware. The
timeline is found in "Chronology of the
Cambrian/Precambrian boundary" at:
http://home.flash.net/~mortongr/cambchron.htm
In case of some organisms, there was no Cambrian explosion.
Of 8 classes of Phylum Echinodermata, one is known from
the Upper Precambrian before the so-called Cambrian
explosion. It is the Ediacaran Arkaruids, which has been
preliminarily assigned to Class Edrioasteroidea. This
class contains primitive starfish.
In the Cambrian, 3 of the 8 classes appear. They are:
1. Homalozoea (carpoids)
2. Helicoplacoidea (which occurs only in Lower Cambrian
strata)
3. Crinoidea (only the most primitive crinoids, Order
Camptostromatida and Eocrinida, are known from
Cambrian)
There is no evidence of a Cambrian explosion of echinoderms.
Rather, they "explosively" diversified at the beginning of
the Ordovician which refutes the claim that most of the
animal life magically appeared during the Cambrian.
The gist of this is that Wells doesn't know what he is
talking about when it comes to the Cambrian explosion
and other aspects of his commentary. His comments need
to be independently verified and checked before accepted
at face value.
A significant problem is that Dr. Wells believes
that evolution is morally and ethically evil. He went after
a Ph.D. in biology, not to understand biological systems,
but instead in order to get ammunition so he could save
the world from its evil influences. Thus, Dr. Wells is
not an unbiased source of information on evolution.
For more about the peppered moths and other issues raised
by Jonanthan Wells a person can go read "NMSR Debates
Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan Wells of the
Discovery Institute" at:
http://www.nmsr.org/jonwells.htm
It is also fun to read a sermon on evolution, "Darwinism:
Why I Went for a Second Ph.D." by Jonanthan Wells at:
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm
"Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me
that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just
as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted
their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me
(along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to
enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity
to prepare myself for battle."
These are not the words of an objective scientist.
People might be interested in:
1. The magazine of the American Geological
Institute, "Geotimes," contains discussions
of Intelligent Design in the "Letters"
department of its September 2000 and November
2000 issues.
2. The December 2000 issue of "Geotimes"
will feature an article "Evolution: Politics
in Kansas - why faith and evolution don't
clash."
Yours,
Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA