NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation

Darwinism is a theory that is supported for the sake of materialist philosophy. This is the main reason behind the zealotry of Darwinists in countering the criticisms against their theory. For a long time, especially in the Western world, critics against the theory of evolution has been assaulted by several means: media propagated against them, they lost their jobs in schools, courts ruled against teaching theories other than evolution.But the scientific evidence is not on the evolutionists' side, so they are loosing ground inevitably. In the last few decades, criticism against the Darwinist dogma was raised from every corner in the scientific community. This created a public awareness about the fallacies of the theory of evolution and the evidence for creation. In the last few years, this awareness is having its impacts in the US educational system. The dogmatic ban on teaching "creationism" - the view that life on Earth is the artifact of a Creator - is now questioned and abolished in several states.The latest crack in the wall of Darwinist dogmatism came from Georgia, one of the southern east states of America. The Guardians News website reports the following:The board of Georgia's second-largest school district voted Thursday night to give teachers permission to introduce students to varying views about the origin of life, including creationism. The proposal, approved unanimously by the Cobb County school board, says the district believes "discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of species."...

​

Supporters, including high school junior Michael Gray, said the board's choice encouraged academic freedom. "I had to do a term paper about evolution and there were just things that I could disprove or have alternate reasons for," said Gray, who attends Pope High School. "I want my brother and sister to be given the option and not told it's the absolute truth."(1)The Darwinist establishment is alarmed against this decision. The strange fact is that they are trying to use legal means to stop creationism, not any intellectual effort. As Guardians News reports, Barry Lynn, executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State says that they will sue the Cobb County school board. "It would be as if Cobb County were putting up a giant `sue me' sign," he adds. What he misses is the fact he is using the same method used by the infamous Inquisition centuries ago: Trying to defeat a scientific idea by "legal" means.The Inquisition had failed to protect its dogmas-like the Ptolemaic model of the universe. The Darwinist establishment will fail too, to protect the myth called evolution.(1) News, sport and opinion from the Guardian's US edition | The Guardian

Walaykum salam brother Andya Primanda. I am not sure about this but are you the same Muslim critic that is in support of evolution? Who tried to refute brother Harun Yahya regarding the new discovery of the Toumai that sank all evolutionary theories?Regards,
Ahmad

nos482,

quote:

---

Since so many don't understand how science functions people, like Harun Yahya, take advantage of this ignorance to further their own agendas and bottomlines. It would take much more than something like this, even if it were as it is being misrepresented by Harun Yahya, to sink evolution. It is not that fragile.

---

One the contrary, evolution contradicts the very essense of Science. Recent developments in science completely disprove the theory of evolution. The only reason Darwinism is still foisted on people by means of a worldwide propaganda campaign lies in the ideological aspects of the theory.Brother Harun Yahya summarizes all these key points, scientifically.And since I am a science student, who undesrtands how science fuctions, I have a better grasp over this subject. Of course, I am always open for corrections and rebuttals, nonetheless.Regards,
Ahmad

Andya Primanda,

quote:

---

yes, since I always use my real name and not using prophets' names for a pseudonym, I am that Andya Primanda. I refuted him and I will shortly answer his critic. In fact, I do not just attack the Toumai article but also his Chapter 9 and some of Chapter 3. Check here
http://liquid2k.com/traduza

---

I don't see anything pseudonymous in brother Adnan using the name Harun Yahya, either.I will have a look at your articles and in the due course of time, will issue my responses to it, Insha Allah.It is Ramadan time, so I may not be able to give my responses pronto. And since you are a theistic evolutionist and a Muslim, I wish you a Happy Ramadan Mubarak!!Assala Moalaikum,
Ahmad

Thats not how it goes. A pseudonym refers to a fictitous name whereas Harun Yahya is a nick adopted by brother Adnan on the basis that the name is the combination of the name of two Prophets, who, are not fictitous.Of course, the other meaning for pseudonym is pen name and if you want to say Harun Yahya is a pseudonym on the basis that it is a pen name then I have no argument.Regards,
Ahmad

John,

quote:

---

The real issue is whether Yahya is hiding behind the name isn't it?

---

He is not hiding behind the name. He does reveal his real name in About the Author section of his site.Regards,
Ahmad

Andya Primanda,

quote:

---

As I see it, recent developments in science (molecular biology, paleontology, genetics, etc.) happen to lend more support to evolution by natural selection.

---

On the contrary, recent developments in science has shed much more light on the origin of mankind and the universe as a whole. We have observed the irreducible complexity in numerous organelles of living organisms (eg - bacterial flagellum, ATP synthase molecule, proteins etc)which refutes evolution. The recent discovery of the cambrian explosion that occured 500-550 million years ago has refuted the very definition of evolution. And then we have the discovery of the Toumai fossil which had the impact of a small nuclear bomb on evolution according to Lieberman and which evolutionists (like you) are constantly trying to refute and back each other up but it all ends in futility. But anyways, thats my point of view. At the end of the day it all boils down according to Al-Quran, "To you be your way and to me mine".Salam,
Ahmad

quote:

---

These arguments are really nothing more than personal incredulity. Since one does not understand a process, it must be supernatural. This is exactly how primitves view(ed) the universe.

---

So irreducible complexity in living organisms cannot be understood? Is that a primitive view, as you state it? I rather doubt. The very phrase [b][i]Irreducible Complexity[/b][/i] explains its meaning, i.e, something that CANNOT be further simplified. For more info, read Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's black box".

quote:

---

Recent discovery??? Sorry, but you just blew your credibility off the board. Besides, evolution easily accomodates this 'explosion' that was really not an explosion. You are way behind the curve on this one.

---

Since I did not blow my credibility off the board, your accusation is moot. Getting back to the subject, Darwin himself admitted that his theory CANNOT explain cambrian explosion (Origin of Species — 2nd ed. Chapter IX). And this, indeed, is an [b]explosion[/i] in the sense that it was an abrupt appearance of most of the complex invertebrates present in the fossil record.

quote:

---

I will agree with the last statement, but remember: it will put you at a disadvantage when it comes down to scientific progress.

---

I'll take your advise. Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Really? How? Please be very specific, explaining what "the very essence of science" is, according to you (with references, preferably), and also exactly how the Theory of Evolution violates science in any way.

---

Theory of Evolution contradicts the Law of thermodynamics. So if a theory contradicts a Law, which one would you go for?

quote:

---

Really? Which developments are those, and why are religious fundamentalists the only ones who seem to know about these developments?

---

Religious fundamentalists? You mean, Robert Shapiro, J.D Thomas, Fred Hoyle, William Dembski, Peter Russel, Michael Behe, Walter Bradley, Blaise Pascal, Philip Johnson are all religious fundamentalists?? They are very well-known scientists and have contributed quite highly in the realm of Science and technology.

quote:

---

Please cite peer-reviewed work from the professional literature, please.

---

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."(Pierre-P Grass, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 103)"The reason we specifically mention the senses of seeing and hearing here is the inability of evolutionists to understand evidence of creation so clear as this. If, one day, you ask an evolutionist to explain to you how this excellent design and technology became possible in the eye and the ear as a result of chance, you will see that he will not be able to give you any reasonable or logical reply. Even Darwin, in his letter to Asa Gray on April 3rd 1860, wrote that "the thought of the eye made him cold all over" and he confessed the desperation of the evolutionists in the face of the excellent design of living things.(Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason. Boston: Gambit, 1971, p. 101.)"Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.(Dan Graves, Scientists of Faith, . 51)"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." (J. De Vries, Essential of Physical Science, Wm.B.Eerdmans Pub.Co., Grand Rapids, SD 1958, p. 15.)

quote:

---

You will have to do better than baseless assertions and conspiracy theories to be taken seriously here, I'm afraid.

---

I hope to do better, Insha Allah (God willing).

quote:

---

Um, no he doesn't. He just parrots the disinformation propagated, for decades, by the Protestant Christian fundamentalist groups in the US. They bear a striking resemblance to each other, really.

---

Ah, the creationist conspiracy theory!"You will have to do better than baseless assertions and conspiracy theories to be taken seriously here, I'm afraid."

quote:

---

It's the same old stuff wrapped in a Muslim package. What you don't realize yet is that these are all very old arguments that were refuted long ago.

---

In accordance to my humble knowledge, the arguments raised in this era by potential as well as professional scientists are just warming up. They haven't been refuted, yet attempts were made.

quote:

---

If these old arguments were valid, and if they had stood up to the rigors of the scientific method, they would have been incorporated into mainstram science long ago. They haven't. This should tell you something.

---

As a matter of fact of fact, they are being incorporated in mainstream science. The step to teach creationism in high schools, the recent dicovery of the Unjunk "Junk DNA", the advances made in the study of the cambrian explosion, observation of irreducible complexity in living organisms are all examples of this incorporation. I do admit, that it will take a while for creationism to be the dominant approach in studying the origin of everything, but its worth it. May the Truth, triumph!!

quote:

---

OK, why don't you briefly explain to us how you think that science functions, and also give us a short explanation of the scientific method and how to tell the difference between real science and speudoscience?

---

Science, as I understand it, is a tool to unravel, to decode, to discover, to advance, to ascend, and to eliminate the wrath of ignorance and superstition. Science does not contradict Religion... nor vice versa. They go hand-in-hand as Einstein states: "Science without religion is Lame; Religion without Science is blind". Real Science deals not only with the material world as we perceived by the five senses but also the root causes and effects of that perception. It is impossible for us to reach the physical world. All objects around us are a collection of perceptions. By processing the data in the centre of vision and in other sensory centres, our brain, throughout our lives, confronts not the "original" of the matter existing outside us but rather the copy formed inside our brain. It is at this point that we are misled by assuming that these copies are instances of real matter outside us. But ofcourse, that is my point of view of it. I hope I made some sense.'No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision" (Surat al-Anaam, 103)Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Irreducible complexity has NEVER been demonstrated in the genome. Never, not once, not even Behe showed it. You seem to be talking as if IC is a fact, it isn't.

---

IC is evident in organisms. And it has been shown in the genome. It has been show that whenever hsp70(protein) was present in a genome, hsp40 and grpE were also found if enough sequencing was done; conversely, genome sequencing has demonstrated that if the hsp70 gene is absent, hsp40 and grpE are also absent. Now that shows that the presence of hsp70 is irreducibly complex. The bacterial flagellum (as a good example in Behe's book) is an example of IC.

quote:

---

Well if Darwin knew of the Cambrian explosion, it wasn't a recent discovery then, was it? The Cambrian explosion is almost as old as fossils. The Cambrian explosion poses a "problem", in that the "whole organism" paleontological evidence shows a rapid burst of change. The timescale still numbers in the several millions of years, however. There are numerous evidences of metazoans in the pre-cambrian, burrows & other trace fossils for example. Plus molecular evidence places the explosion before the Cambrian too. The real time taken to go from worm to trilobite is unknown.

---

So an explosion of complex living organism like the trilobites justify the evolutionary theory of slow gradual change of living organism?? Mind the phrase used in geological literature, "Cambrian EXPLOSION" not "gradual evolution by natural selection or random mutation" as coined by Darwin. These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them. So now, are you going to toss Gould's alternative theory of punctuated equilibria or just admit that this explosion, which occured 500 milliion years ago poses a great dilemma for they theory of evolution?Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

I think what you are saying is, "we do not understand how complexity can be reduced, therefor we need some supernatural agency to create it." This is really different only in degree from appeasing the volcano gods with human sacrifices.

---

I have not mentioned anything concerning any suoernatural agency.......yet. How you can supposedly know the arts of telepathy is bizzare to me. Getting back, we do know how complexity can be simplified or reduced but ONLY IN CERTAIN CASES. There are systems that are irreducible complex and it is evident. Behe outlined the example of a mouse-trap and demonstrated how a mouse-trap is irreducibly complex. Apart from that; the ATPase molecule, bacterial flagellum, the cilium etc are irreduibly complex.

quote:

---

So, then, if Darwin knew about the 'Cambrian explosion' how can you call it a 'recent discovery?' Charles Darwin died in 1882! Actually, the Cambrian 'explosion' been known for a long time and it has provided no obstacle to evolutionary theory. Why don't you check out something more recent than Darwin's own writings? Or is it easier to pick on the dead guy's ideas?

---

How do you know where do I draw the line for something to be recent? Differing ways to see things is what really makes us unique and we see things differently in different ways. Something that is recent for one may not be recent for another and vice versa. Switching tracks, Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. I would like to quote the preacher and one of the most popular(and favorite) characters in atheism and darwinism, the Zoologist Richard Dawkins himself regarding this subject:"For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229.)

quote:

---

Well, if an explosion can last tens of millions of years, I suppose you are right. The problem is that modern theory more accuratedly referes to the 'explosion' a 'slow burn'. Your sources are a bit out of date.

---

I doubt that. When Dawkins himself admits that the organism in the Cambrian era were "just planted there without any evolutionary history", this provides a good argument against evolution. I really don't know how your asserted modern theory can describe "explosion" as "slow burn" since I am not aware of it. But most assuredly, the recent findings and advances made regarding this subject, does provide, at the least, a clue for an Omnipotent Entity. Even Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."(Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 197). Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."(Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302.). The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us"(Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765.)

quote:

---

Now, if all of the invertebrates in the fossil record appeared in the Cambrian, where are the pelecypods? The starfish? Nautiloids? It seems there are a few missing. Why is that?

---

Now when did I say that "all of the invertebrates appeared in the Cambrian era"?? I said, "MOST of the complex invertebrates". Do read my statements carefully before chalking out a response.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

You have not demonstrated an 'explosion' of any kind. There are numerous explanations for the sudden appearance of life in the Cambrian. Better preservation for one.

---

What is "better preservation"? What are the alternative theories for this abrupt appreance?? Plate tectonics? PE? Or Creation? And why do I have to demonstrate this is an explosion?? The phrase itself tells you this. And how else would you describe or label the abrupt appearance of living organisms?

quote:

---

And what is this about 'slow gradual' change. Who adheres to this argument today? Or are you still debating the dead guys? Well, they aren't here so you'll just have to listen long enough to find out what the current ideas are in evolutionary theory.

---

You mean the "slow gradual" change is not part of evolution?? Is this another Neo-Darwinist view of this theory?

quote:

---

Well, this is wrong. You have been decieved by your professional creationists. There is ample evidence of metazoan life millions of years before the Cambrian.

---

I don't think Dawkins is a creationist, is he?

quote:

---

So, are you goint to admit that recognition of the Cambrian 'explosion' is not a 'recent discovery' that puts evolutionary theory on its head? I'm only bringing this up to show you that your understanding of evolution and paleontology is not adequate to critically analyze what you get from your professional creationists.

---

I am willing to stand corrected, provided sufficient evidence exists. The recent advances and fossil records has contributed highly on the classification of organisms in the Cambrian era. To begin with, how would you explain the extremely complex eye structure of the trilobites that appeared all of a sudden?Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Ahmad, you said that you were a student of science but you're not acting like it.
You were asked to provide a peer-reviewed source and all the quotes you provided came from popular books, not the journals. Not one was from a peer-reviewed source. Try again.

---

If you know, most of the popular science journals like Nature (John Maddox), Scientific American (John Rennie) and a host of others are by pro-darwinists and atheists. Nonetheless, I will give some:"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist(peer-reviewed source), 49:1961, p. 240."Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review(Journal), (May 27, 1983), p. 641."I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover(Science Journal) 2(5):34-37 (1981).If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we mustadmit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. (H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin(Journal), vol. 138, 1980, p. 138).

quote:

---

Argument from authority. Just because some scientists thought something was so is not the authority. The evidence is the authority. Try again.

---

Well, you asked for them. I am willing to discuss the evidence too.

quote:

---

Go to talkorigins.org and you will find all those arguments refuted. They're so old most of us don't bother rebutting them any more.

---

Seems like you're reading only one side of the story. For counter-rebuttals and responses go to trueorigins.org, icr.org or harunyahya.com

quote:

---

But what if the religion is "ignorance" and "superstition"?

---

Then its not a religion, in the first place.

quote:

---

You don't seem to understand the definition of a theory and a law. A law is a repeatable phenomenon that occurs in nature, a theory is a mechanism that explains many observations. Theories never become laws because the two are completely different in purpose. Therefore to automatically assume that a law is superior to a theory is incorrect because there is no such hierarchy. Also laws are based upon what has already been observed, so an exception in a law predicted by a theory may occur.

​

The Law of Gravity states that apples fall from trees. The Theories of gravity deal with the reasons why (curved space, gravitons, etc.) There are even *laws* of science that are based upon
*theories*. For example, all the Gas Laws in chemistry are based on Atomic Theory. If the rules of physics suddenly changed so that the Atomic Theory became invalid the gas laws would become invalid as well.

---

I understand what you're trying to say and I do agree with it.... to a certain extent. I am not saying that Laws are not based on theories. My argument is diametrically different. The Law of thermodynamics is not BASED on the theory of evolution but the dynamics of heat and entropy. However, if the theory of evolution contradicts this Law, how are we supposed to reconcile and justify?

quote:

---

Of course the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not contradict evolution in the first place because it only states that entropy increases in closed systems. The biosphere is an open system, energy is being fed into the system all the time so order can continue to increase indefinately.

---

But the biosphere is enclosed in a closed system - The Universe. Should we not take that in account?Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Well, why not?

---

Why not? So I have to base my arguments by the criterias you lay?

quote:

---

If complexity requires a designer, and a designer is complex (by definition) then who designed the designer?

---

How do you know that the designer is complex? To what definition do you ascribe that to? Do you believe in the [/i]designer[/i] in the first place, to ask such a question? Its like asking who created the Creator; which is an utter baseless question, since the Creator created His creations. He began the beginning.

quote:

---

You mean that you don't understand them.

---

No, I mean they are irreducibly complex.

quote:

---

You mean Behe the evolutionist? Well, I guess that anything we don't understand must be magic.

---

Yes, Behe is a theistic evolutionist. And I don't recall saying anything uncomprehensible to be magic.

quote:

---

Okay, so a hundred thirty years ago is recent.

---

Hmm... yeah.

quote:

---

Yes, that would be advisable for you at this point.

---

Why don't you quote my entire sentence instead of a phrase?

quote:

---

And, this is important how? I want to know where the human fossils are in the Cambrian.

---

I never claimed that human fossils were part of the cambrian explosion and I don't think there are any.

quote:

---

Didn't anyone ever tell you the pitfalls of quote mining? Now, why is Dawkins still an evolutionist after this great epiphany? Seems to me that he probably said something else before or after this statement that would show us what he thinks of the Cambrian 'explosion.' Why do your professional creationists not give you the entire context of the Dawkins statement?

---

That statement enters the criteria of an honest acknowledgements (confession) by Dawkins. Although he's still an evolutionist, the quote is to validate my argument about cambrian explosion. As I know, the statement is in context.

quote:

---

Nope. He says 'as though they were just planted there' and then probably went into a discussion of why they appeared to be so. But your sources don't give you this part of the information.

---

Oh but he did. Let me extend the quote Dawkins made in his book about the cambrian explosion for further clarification:"Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).So now you get the full picture? The reason he applies here is "due to imperfections in the fossil record". Thats the only explanation he gives. Throughout his book, he does not describe the reason of the imperfections as he claims.

quote:

---

Yes, so good that Dawkins is still an evolutionist! LOL!

---

Not Dawkins quote, but the Cambrian explosion

quote:

---

Just my point. You are not aware of a lot of things regarding evolutionary theory. You really should find other sources of information other than your favorite creationist websites.

---

I don't know much I know, nor do I know how much you know nor do you know how much I know and ad infinitum. Lets just share the knowledge instead of pointing out how much anyone knows.

quote:

---

Now wait. Is this recent recent or old recent? Sorry, but you've set yourself up for this.

---

This is recent.

quote:

---

Wow, you've just convinced me. Futuyama is now a creationist! Um, Ahmad, I think you kind of ingored a few 'ifs' in this quote. Really, you need to read ALL of the quote, not just the part that your professional creationists extracted for you.

---

Futuyama is still an evolutionist and that proves my point. No matter how much empirical evidence is gathered against evolution, materialists will continue to cling to their flimsy thread of materialistic philosophy. All they can make is confessions which I applaud as a sign of their honesty.How long is that "ALL"?? Do I to quote the entire chapter here? I have taken the quote IN CONTEXT.

quote:

---

Once again, please note the 'if' in front of the Darwin quote.

---

I have and this "if" of darwin has changed into reality, a.k.a, Cambrian Explosion.

quote:

---

Is this a quote from Darwin, too? What is the authority behind this statement? After all, you have backed everything else up so well.

---

Notice the word "fatal" that was used by darwin in my previous quote.

quote:

---

Really, Ahmad, if your quotes are so meaningful, then why are not Dawkins, Gould and Bengston known as creationists? Do you think that they perhaps had something else to say? Something that perhaps your professional creationists do not want you to know?

---

My quotes can be verified for their accuracy. I really don't think the question you posed (although they are good questions) should be directed to me since I am not responsible for what Dawkins, Gould, or Bengston says. Ask them. I am just quoting them to validate my argument

quote:

---

Well, I was just pointing out a few exceptions. I mean it seems like they should have been there right? Weren't they all created on the same day? And what about all of the complex vertebrates? Where were they?

---

Lets hear from Gould:"The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)

quote:

---

Actually, your statement is incorrect. You should say that 'most of the modern phyla are represented in the Cambrian System.' And, they have come a long way since then.

---

I repeat: abrupt appearance of complex living organisms ALL AT ONCE.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

None of the above have been DEMONSTRATED to be IC. Can you provide ANY scientific literature that concludes ANY genetic structure or sequence is IC? Do you know why?

---

Your approach to respond to my argument is quite sarcastic. I provided scientific about how the presense of hsp70 in the genome is irreducibly complex. For scientific literature go here >> http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darwinianpathways.htm

quote:

---

You can believe in IC all you like, but without the ability to test the hypothesis it is merely wishful thinking.

---

Once again, sarcasm. Why don't you respond to my arguments with empirical evidence instead of sheer sarcams which does no benefit to our dialog whatsoever.

quote:

---

How can you have evidence for an untestable hypothesis? Answer; You can't, it's circular. Therefore IC isn't evident AT ALL.

---

IC is not a hypothesis, it is evident. I gave you the examples. Its not circular either.... like natural selection

quote:

---

Fine, you tell ME how long the Cambrian explosion took. I think you'll finfd it's a tad longer than you think.

---

Hmmm....... 53 million years?

quote:

---

Incorrect. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct96.html

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E == early, M == middle, L == late
Silurian
----------------

​

L. Ord. (Vertebrates, Fish)
M. Ord. (different trilobites)
E. Ordovician (different trilobites)
>---------------

​

L.Camb. (different trilobites)
(euconodonts (chordates))

​

M.Camb. (different trilobites)
(non-"sea urchin" echinoderms)
(plenty of other invertebrates)
(halkierids, soft-bodied "transitional" chordates)

​

E.Camb (first trilobites)
(small shellies, including
armoured bits of lobopods)
(trace fossils)

​

----------------
----------------

​

Upper pre-cambrian (BEFORE THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION!!!)

​

"worms", probable "flatworms", cnidarians
(i.e. jellyfish relatives), "segmented
worms", possible ancient deuterostomes
of the Ediacara fauna.

---

Talk origins is behind date. Fossils recently found challenge the rapid animal evolution in the cambrian period as talk origins claims >> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...7/0719_crustacean.htmlIn short, they are wrong

quote:

---

(transitional fossils?)

​

a few small "blobby" multicellular
remains (e.g., see Hofmann, 1985)
hard to tell if animal or plant
----------------
more single and multicellular "algae"
and bacteria in mid Precambrian
sediments, including stromatolites
more metamorphic and igneous rocks
eventually unfossiliferous

---

So there are no transitional fossils evidence for cambrian explosion. They haven't named any. Guess talk origins once again is gasping at straws.

quote:

---

No one is saying that evolution never proceeded at a rattling good pace. Just that an "explosion" is seen by many creationists to be instantaneous, when in fact, many millions of years elapse, & that's before you factor in the Precambrian faunas.

---

Once again, your argument is dated. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...7/0719_crustacean.html

quote:

---

On a related note, how do you rationalise the Cambrian explosion with your version of special creation, given metazoans exist before the "explosion"?

---

existed before? The very first appearance of metazoans took place during the Camnrian era.

quote:

---

If a new extant species is discovered tomorrow, did it appear abruptly?

---

That would depend once we investigate the origin of the species