Part 2 of 7 - The Fossil Record, Dr. Don Patton, Ph.D.

[stratocaster539]

What kind of Phd produced this garbage? Not a genuine one obviously!

[TruthSurge]

4:07 a guy who doesn't even understand English grammar enough to read someone else's sentence should stop talking altogether. He sounds like a southern baptist preacher and I suspect that's all he is.

[gregrutz]

The Cambrian animals were all small marine creatures, no land animals back then.

[Londron]

I lol at the naive theists here who think the fossil record is even important to proof evolution.

Sad, really sad.

[TheLostGuitarist]

he is a fraud he never got a PhD at any accredited university. It's a joke that he's even speaking on this subject

[kg4bga]

@TheLostGuitarist Are you saying that all of us need a PHD to understand anything. You don't need a PHD to see error in what someone is saying. Even the evolutionist that does have a PHD know that evolution is a religous view. There is a lot of there work you have to take on FAITH.

[TheLostGuitarist]

@kg4bga Evolution is not a religious view. There is not one part of evolutionary theory based on faith. Tell me exactly what diagram, and what dataset from exactly what peer reviewed scientific journal article on evolutionary theory is faith based.

You don't need a PhD to understand something, this man is trying to use his credentials to imply he is holds some sort of academic authority on the subject. He, as well as you don't seem to understand what evolutionary theory is...

[kg4bga]

@TheLostGuitarist You were not there to see it. You can't make it happen in a lab. you can not show pictures of it. you have no proof that there was an  explosion 4.6 billion years ago. that is something that you have to believe happened. there is your faith.

[TheLostGuitarist]

@kg4bga huh? I can see the fossil record....I can see evolution in a lab (see pubmed articles on speciation events both bacterial and plant), and what does that have to do with an "explosion" 4.6 billion years ago....big bang theory=/= evolutionary theory

that is the problem with you silly creationists, you have no scientific education and don't know anything about what you are arguing.

Oh well I'm off to learn how to save lives (I'm in medical school), keep praying kid

[kg4bga]

Show me one rock come alive. I don't think so. you have to use the Biblical view for science to even work. Evolution says everything is changing. If that is true then the results of science experiments would change to. You have NO bases to say that a science experiments you did today will give you the same results as yesterday except it has always been this way, unless there is a supreme ruler. I know you will not understand that right now, but think about it, You will see i am right.

[gregrutz]

@kg4bga ''Show me one rock come alive''  Strawman argument. No one says we came from rock except creationists.

''Evolution says everything is changing'' No, just species are evolving. Uniformitarianism says process are the same today and yesterday. The laws of nature do no change.

''except it has always been this way'' And it will stay that way.

[TheLostGuitarist]

@kg4bga faith = belief with no evidence.

faith =/= belief without actually seeing something

I don't need faith to know electrons exist even though I can't physically see them. That's what science is...measuring things we can't physically see, using evidence to make educated inferences and predictions which lead to theories and models of how the world works

go finish your GED and you may understand that some day

[TheLostGuitarist]

@kg4bga for instance, explain what part of the papers on comparative molecular genetics are faith based. If you don't know what comparative molecular genetics is, it is the most current and complete evidence of evolutionary theory's validity.

[gregrutz]

@kg4bga Religion is defined as a dogma and rituals that centers around the belief in the supernatural, a deity or both.

Science does not use the supernatural or a deity.

Therefore, logic follows> this might be new to you, Science is not a Religion.

Nothing in Science is based on Faith.

[wizard970]

@gregrutz His PHD is in Christian Education from Pacific Collage of Graduate Studies (Luther Rice Universities). It is not accredited or authorized by any local or national board to grant degrees.

[FiverBeyond]

This man simply doesn't understand how Linnean classification works. New phyla don't appear because they are the second highest type of division that we use, and thus they are also older. The same arguments can be made for each division, using a more recent date for each one.

What he doesn't tell his audience is that every single creature which appears in the Cambrian explosion was water-dwelling. Our phylum (Chordata) appeared there as well... in the form of the first skull-and-spine fish.

[gamesbok]

This is disengenious bullshit.

The cambrian explosion is apparent only because the life form from the precambrian were soft bodied and do not fossilise well.

Curious that Gould reaches different conclusions.

[chickensthree]

But you have overlooked the fact that many soft bodied fossils are found throuhgout the Cambrian. That which proves too much, proves nothing at all!

[gamesbok]

I have overlooked nothing, as soft bodied fossles are still rare.

[chickensthree]

Excuse me, but as I said, there are NUMEROUS examples of soft bodied fossils in the Cambrian, even beginning at the lower Cambrian -- but the pre-Cambrian is almost destiute! This illustrates a BIG differernce, thus, showing the futility of defending evolution on the basis of an almost empty pre-Cambrian.

[gamesbok]

What makes you think evolution needs defending?

[chickensthree]

Because it's so riddled through with holes. (And, in case you haven't noticed, this is precisely what you've been trying to do!) By the way, which view do you hold? The older, slow Darwinian theory or the newer punctuated equilibria theory?

[gamesbok]

It's like this, it's simple. Evolution is logically necessary in any system with reproduction, variation and selection. It's implicit in the meaning of the words. It isn't a matter of emperical evidence, although ALL emperical evidence supports it. It's a logical necessity.

You can argue that other processes are involved. You can argue that it doesn't tell the whole story, but evolution is inescapable, logically.

[chickensthree]

It depends on what you mean by evolution. The word itself simply means change - which would include any horizontal variation (variety) within a specie. However, we are addressing evolution that presumes vertical transition connecting species.

[gamesbok]

Go tell your parents you don't believe in vertical transition connecting species. Report back their response.

[jgsmerda]

@gamesbok

Seriously, the foremost authorities in the field have failed to prove evolutionary theories for over 150 years. Maybe you'll succeed. Maybe not. Make sure you distinguish between punctuated equilibrium and Darwinism. Either one you pick, it's the short straw. Don't worry, being in the right won't count when the Judgment is upon us. Then we'll exchange pleasantries.

[gamesbok]

I'm not obliged to pick.

My stance is that I'm not obliged to look at emperical evidence other than that necessary to establish reproduction, variation and selection. Given these, evolution becomes logically necessary, a prori true.

You need a mechanism to stop it.

[s3ss1ons]

@jgsmerda Scientific theories are not like religions, you do not have to choose one over the other. The punctuated equilibrium theroy supports Darwin and vice versa, there are a few indiscrepancies between them but you do not have to be in one boat or the other.

[chickensthree]

Evolution in this sense is unproved and unprovable, for the simple reason that it fails to meet the most basic requirements of science: it cannot be observed, it cannot replicated and it cannot be tested. Actually, evolution is nothing more than a philosophical viewpoint, an assumption just science fiction.

[chickensthree]

To say that the general theory of evolution is supported by evidences is the very thing Im looking for. However, I have seen no such evidences. Over the past 50 years everything offered in support of evolution has been, at best, only contrived and circumstantial. And most of the evidences offered in the past have since been discarded. Just a few remain.

[gamesbok]

This is a gross misrepresentation. Shame on you.

[chickensthree]

Please show me just one evidence so compelling that you cannot help but know that evolution is true. Just one. If evolution is supported by the evidence, surely you can show me at least one.

And I ask again, which view do you hold? The older, slow Darwinian theory or the newer punctuated equilibria theory to which leading evolutionists now adhere?

[gamesbok]

You talk as if you have an alternative theory.

[chickensthree]

Waiting for a positive and substantial response to my last posts.

[gamesbok]

By Larry O'Hanlon, MSNBC

updated 5:49 p.m. ET Feb. 17, 2010

'Furrows preserved in 565-million-year-old rocks are now the first evidence that some of Earth's earliest and mysterious living things had muscles to move themselves -- and so were truly animals.'

The Cambrian Explosion is an illusion.

'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.'

[chickensthree]

The Cambrian contains representatives of ALL PHYLA. However, there is nothing in the lower Cambrian or pre-Cambrian to show from whence they "evolved" -- absolutely no evidence of a gradual evolutionary progression. This is what is lacking, but what evolution would predict sholuld be there.

[gamesbok]

You have no idea what's in the Cambrian or precambrian. So far what we have discovered supports evolution, and nothing contradicts it.

If you want to argue, perhaps you would like to share your alternative.

[chickensthree]

Let me repeat - ALL PHYLA are represented in the Cambrian, which flatly contradicts evolution. Now if what's found in the Cambrian "supports evolution" all you need do is SHOW me - but its' now obvious you cannot. And you have not yet told me what theory you believe, Darwinianism or PE - or do you even know the difference?

[gamesbok]

He he he. 'Even if we are not able to interpret the Ediacaran as clearly as we would like, we will make progress with the Cambrian biota. The recent discovery of several formations with excellent morphological preservation of Cambrian organisms will contribute to the study of the evolution of the phyla, as we place stem group members and perhaps eventually converge on the common ancestors of modern phyla.' Nimravid's Weblog.

There exists no problem Chickenshit, sorry.

[chickensthree]

Your refusal to answer questions demonstrates your inability to defend evolution. This, together with the fact that you cannot express yourself without uncalled for language, means you are unworthy of correspondence. Hence, further posts from you at this site are now effective blocked. No need to respond.

[gamesbok]

He he he, I knew you'd cut and run.

Adios Chickenshit.

[rem0709]

They control what we read see and hear!Never showing you the truth only LIES!

[Arglactable]

Simply the existence of Distinct Phyla in the Cambrian period is not proof that they did not evolve from that point. These fossils are NOT the BEGINNING of life itself, merely the beginning of the fossil RECORD of that life, therefore the life before the beginning of that record is not accounted for, which is why those evolutions are unexplained. Either way there is PLENTY of other evidence that supports evolutions besides the fossil record, contrary to the useless quote from 1981 he provided...

[brown55061]

Okay then, show us the proof w/out using some crap off Talk Origins or a Dawkins book. Don did not say the distinct phyla diproves evolution. Besides, you need to define "evolution" as either micro level or macro. Species have not evolved from phylas into another, which what Mr Patton accepts.

No offense, but Don has a PhD and you don't. Not that a title means anything, but this is his life's work. To put faith in evolution means you ignore laws of science and ASSUME many things.

[Arglactable]

I don't need to provide evidence. 99% of the scientific community already accepts it as fact, based on the results of hundreds of separate experiments (all of which support and update the theory). If you can't be bothered to look up the shitloads of evidence for evolution, then you're not informed enough to argue with me.

No offense, but a PhD (however legitimate) in no way validates views that contradict the scientists who have constantly tested it (all of them with PhD's as well).

[Arglactable]

I would probably respect your views if it weren't for the fact that people like you find a handful of idiots who have warped their views of science to fit their moronic religious beliefs and act like they are somehow more qualified than the entire scientific community. You can't just assume the Bible is right then skew the evidence from there and call that science. If that's your definition of science, it's no wonder you can't buy into evolution (a valid scientific conclusion).

[brown55061]

You aren't even refuting his topics accurately. Fossils don't lie, desperate atheists do.

Mr Patton is not changing the laws of science to match the Bible. He is only pointing out how the science community will continually rewrite theories INTENTIONALLY to make it match a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Evolutionist publications show this.

Thermodynamics are the most solid laws we know. Macro-evolution contradicts it. Mass chaos does not create genetic perfection. It never has.

[Arglactable]

It's obvious there's no point in arguing with someone who's honestly stupid enough to dispute the FACT that the earth is that old. Also please note that essentially ALL scientific publications come from "evolutionist" sources, which rather makes "Evolutionists" seem a bit more reliable.

And "desperate" atheists? Come on. How can we be desperate when we have ALL the evidence and you have none? Even if one you managed to disprove evolution, you still won't have proven Christianity.

[brown55061]

What FACT, what evidence??? You haven't cited anything. Though I'm sure you could easily quote some babble found on Talk Origins.

He shows contradictions in scientist's theories against thie own statements, yet that gives evolutionists more credit? He quotes them because scientists continually change their theories based on new evidence. That's good for both sides of the argument and accuracy.

[Arglactable]

Another thing you don't seem to understand. It is not evolution that needs to be proven, it is CHRISTIANITY. Just how valid do you think you guys look when instead of providing evidence to support your claims you simply (poorly) attack the opposing claim? Especially when you come up with shit like "Noah's flood carved out the Grand Canyon!" And "Noah's flood instantly fossilized all these creatures (except humans) and arranged them in neat layers!"

[brown55061]

You claim you have all this evidence, yet the leading archeologists and geologists conclude the fossil evidence for macro-evolution is non existent. Either the PhD's are right, or you are. I'm going with the guys who studied their whole lives.

"Christianity" is faith. Christ fulfilled over 300 prophecies written hundreds of years before his life. What's to debate? PM me if you wish to talk, my guess is your superiority complex will prevent that.

[Arglactable]

"Mass chaos does not create genetic perfection. It never has."

You've got four obvious flaws here. One, you state that as is if it were fact (as per standard religious fundamentalist style) when it is not. There is only one example of it and there is not likely to be another. And it has not been disproven. Two, "genetic perfection?" As defined by whom? Three, you are assuming the universe was CREATED, thus personifying "chaos," which is just moronic.

[Arglactable]

Four, where did "mass chaos" come from anyway? This is a common misconception with nearly all creationist straw-man arguments. To address the most relevant situation, EVOLUTION is not random. That's not to say there aren't genetic mutations (not quite perfect, huh?), but mutations generally don't cause large changes. Evolution comes through adaptation to the environment. That is in no way "chaos."

[Arglactable]

Also please define "Macroevolution" and the "Laws of Thermodynamics" for me. Based on your response, I suspect a blatantly obvious, cookie-cutter creationist straw-man (similar to most creationist arguments). The reason I suspect this is... Macroevolution in no way contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics. Perhaps you should get your information from sources that aren't full of shit (stay clear of idiots like Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind).

[BlueScreenLife]

PHD my ass. You mean that piece of paper he got from an unaccredited degree mill that any Tom Dick and Jane could have gotten? I mean ok, I guess it's understandable how people could fall for the crap coming out religion, but Don Patton has bullshit smeared all over his face.

[brown55061]

Did you know that over 1000 prophecies are fulfilled in the"crap coming out religion"? No, because you are just making absurd acussations based on what you don't understand.

I bet you defend an evolutionist's PHD in science, yet when a Christian man gets one it's just a piece of paper. Do you have one, since they are so easy to get? I can call names too w/out giving proof, but I don't resort to that. You are the man!

[BlueScreenLife]

You mean all those prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament conveniently fulfilled about this fictional Jesus character in the New Testament? You mean all those prophecies about the Jewish people returning to Israel, self-fulfilled by a people convinced by those prophecies? Bitch please! I don't trust a book that borrows from other cultures, advocates killing of children, and written hundreds of years after the fact (see Genesis and Exodus). I know because I was steeped in that B.S.

[brown55061]

Fictional character? Sorry, you can't be debated because you are a propagandist. And no, I am not talking about the babble you are.

I guess since Jesus knew the prophets predicted he would be murdered, he decided to be a hero and go along with dying on purpose just for prophecy sake.

As for children, the culture of Mayans and Mesopotamians (w/out religion) was equally harsh. Children were 2nd class citizens in all cultures. You lack intelligence and historical facts.

[BlueScreenLife]

And that excuses the Bible for making these commandments because....? Now really, is there any, I mean any other outside source other than the Bible that would verify the existence of Jesus. Please please show me, because it would be fascinating for me to know.

[brown55061]

Read the book Case for Christ, lots of examples in there. At least 50+ pieces of evidence.

Lots of early gentile and Christian writers talk about Jesus from 50-450 AD. Look into it.

I won't resort to arguing. I suggest everyone do their own research for BOTH sides of a debate. There's more evidence showing he did live than not. You aren't going to find a cast footprint with DNA evidence of Jesus.

[BlueScreenLife]

You mean the one by Lee Stroebel? Oh boy... Now I haven't read it, but if his "up-to-date" rants about the "latest scientific research" are any indication, there is good reason to doubt.

[BlueScreenLife]

But thank you for you recommendation. My turn. It's not the end-all, and yes it's a text-book, and personally I think it's actually skewed towards advocating for Judaism/Christianity, but Stephen L. Harris' Understanding the Bible is a good scholarly and critical read.

[BlueScreenLife]

Nice little cop out by the way. Can't be debated because I'm a propagandist? Good one.

No my friend, I'm not a propagandist. I just like the truth is all.

[brown55061]

Not a cop out, that was truth. You saw some zeitgeist nonsense, did all your research on Google or YouTube and claim to be the higher intellectual in a debate.

Hovind is trash, agreed 110%. But Don Patton is nothing like him from a religious standpoint. He was a geologist by trade before he pushed creation. Your only debate here is "he has BS on his face". If you can prove beyond a doubt what he puts forward as false, do it. Don't just make a claim and run w/out proof.

[BlueScreenLife]

Actually no, like I've said, I've actually READ the Bible. Google research by itself is weak, but it is a nice way to get started. Are you familiar with how many different sources the Bible has (i.e. the P-source and J-source)? Are you aware that Jesus was not the only Messiah figure of his time? Once again, you don't address any of the things I stated, you only accuse me of "zeitgeist nonsense" and spreading propaganda. I'd be very glad to point out some readings your way if you'd like.

[BlueScreenLife]

Now I will accept the possibility that I suffer from a complex of ignorance. I just can't seem to verify independently whether Patton has an advanced degree in science or has published any work done in the field. Nor can I find evidence of Jesus' existence outside of the Bible. Since it's possible you know more about these, I sincerely hope you'd point me to some substantial facts answering my questions. Honestly man, I'd like to know for sure.

[BlueScreenLife]

As for anyone's supposed credentials, it's very simple: look it up! Fact-check! . Did said person graduate from an accredited university? Verify with a university about a person's degree. PHD's in science usually publish papers in reputable scientific journals. It's not very hard to do. Why is it that fact-checking is so difficult for Creationists? It's startling. Any real scientist will be glad to show you his credentials. Why doesn't Don Patton display the same transparency?

[BlueScreenLife]

And no, I don't have a degree in science, and I'm intellectually honest about it, unlike most of the Creationist clowns out there. A advanced science degree is one of the hardest things anyone can accomplish, so it makes me angry when clowns like Don Patton or Kent Hovind claims to have science degrees when they didn't do any work.