Comments on Nelson's Review of GAE

False.

That’s true, what he is doing is not recognizable as science to us.

Never said this.

Unaware of this. Come again?

False.

3 Likes

Life existed in the oceans for 3.5 billion years before the Cambrian including at least 100 million years of multicellular life. How does your Bible science explain those facts?

2 Likes

Sorry, that won’t work, because the Cambrian explosion came before there were any plants, yet plants appear on Day 3 and sea animals not until Day 5. Further, birds come along on Day 5 also, yet in reality they’re long after the Cambrian and long after land animals, Day 6.

4 Likes

I assume you are referring to Genesis 1:20:

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

If this verse is referring to the Cambrian explosion—and that’s news to me—are you thereby claiming that birds were flying around during the Cambrian???

If there were birds during the Cambrian, why don’t we find bird fossils among the fossil Protichnites and Climactichnites?

4 Likes

Another problem with the Cambrian explosion interpretation is that everything in the sea was created on the same day. That would be all the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic “kinds” rather than just the Cambrian “kinds”. It doesn’t say “let the water teem with the first living creatures that then evolve over millions of years into what we see later on”. The living creatures teeming in the water in the Cambrian are very different from the ones teeming in the water now.

2 Likes

Well congratulations. You guys have this all sewn up. Silence the dissenting voices that actually speak reason, and you win. Congrats. Nelson is a scientist just as much as anyone on this forum if not more. He not only deserves to be heard. He deserves to be respected, something you do not seem to know how to give. Congrats. You own your own little world now. Hope you can keep it spinning.

Nelson is not a scientist. He is a philosopher of science. I’m glad he is here, but I also disagree with him. Disagreement isn’t disrespect.

4 Likes

Actually, he’s a philosopher. To my knowledge he’s never done any science and wouldn’t claim to be a scientist. Nor is anyone silencing him; I can’t imagine what could have prompted your complaint.

4 Likes

Some of @r_speir’s comments on the main thread were not substantive, and for this reason were not approved. That’s what he is calling silencing.

As far as I know, all of @pnelson’s posts have been approved. He has not been hampered in any way from making his case.

3 Likes

If his science is just as good, then he ought to get busy publishing discoveries and filing patent based on his science. That doesn’t happen, we never see that from Creation Science. That would be unfair though, because this isn’t about science; it’s about the struggle of people to adapt their cherished beliefs in a rapidly changing world.

1 Like

Which is, by the way, what the GAE gives us too, but with well accepted science. Take the olive branch.

3 Likes

This was the crux of my argument that you all have conveniently avoided.

Just realized this page is not visible on the main forum page. So I am not interested. That only reflects affirmatively on the idea that you are a pack of overinflated, self-appointed “scientists”. No more from me on this page. @pnelson deserves a round of applause for not only holding his own against the likes of you but actually coming out on top in basically every discussion he has had with you. Good day.

@r_speir, we endeavor to give professionals such as @pnelson the best visibility possible.

I know you think you were helping him, but he is ID and is not arguing for YEC. Your comments were distracting from his point. If you’d like, I can copy them here for you to see.

Accusations of treating people unfairly do not belong on the front page of the site. It is boring and off putting. They are still accessible to anyone and public, which is better most forums would allow. If all you want to do is grandstand and decry us, this is not the right venue any ways. I’m sure you can find a more receptive audience for that sort of posturing in a YEC forum.

On the other hand, if you’d like to understand us or help us understand you, there is quite a lot of good that can come of it.

3 Likes

The irony is killing me. Are you going to keep continuing to accuse PS of censorship? I don’t agree with how everything is handled on here sometimes, but they have never censored anyone. That is quite evident.

1 Like

I’m disappointed to learn that you are not here for honest discussion. Apparently you are here only to advertise your own view.

5 Likes

Odd, since that is exactly what I was addressing.

Complete rubbish and diversion. You have not even attempted a rebuttal of Meyer’s analysis of the Cambrian. You and yours are only kidding yourselves. Answer the top-down scenario and stop the diversion tactics.

1 Like

Would you like to start a new thread on Meyer’s analysis of the Cambrian?

This thread is about Nelson’s review of the GAE, not Meyer’s analysis of the Cambrian. You are the one who is off-topic, not them.

Any number of professional paleontologists have made mincemeat out of Meyer’s ignorant ham-fisted attempts to explain the Cambrian explosion. For example here is a review of Darwin’s Doubt written by Dr. Donald Prothro , an actual highly respected and published member of the Paleontology community.

Stephen Meyer’s Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies

I’m still waiting for your explanation for the 3.5 billion years of life before the Cambrian and the 5 major mass extinctions after the Cambrian. :slightly_smiling_face:

5 Likes