Why Intelligent Design Best Explains the Fossil Record Data

[@cptrikester2671]

Enjoying this series, IMMENSELY.

[@HigherInfluence]

The old guard are wasting so much time trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Acknowledge the data and move forward.

[@mattk6719]

Would that include hanging onto the deep-time rock layers fallacy?

[@jakyru1981]

Dont waste bandwidth changing the old guard. Lets continue to educate the new guard and move on.

[@TrevoltIV]

And where does the circle go? That's right, the square hole!

[@m0RRisC2319]

My current favorite book is Rare Earth by paleontologist and astronomers Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee who make the point that complex life is significantly more difficult than most people think it is and why alien life is extraordinarily rare if it even exists at all . In one chapter about the Cambrian Explosion, a common counter argument for the "missing fossils" before the Cambrian Explosion is that maybe they just didn't have hard body parts that could fossilize and that is why we don't see them. But if skeletons and hard body parts are required for large complex animals to protect themselves from predators, grow larger, etc. like evolutionary scientific consensus would suggest, then how could these theoretical "fossil-less" animals exist? I found that compelling towards the "Intelligent Design" position on evolutionary biology especially with regards to the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion

[@keithst.pierre4875]

Great book. I’ve read it once and need to re-read it. But your point about the fossils is a good one-that and the lack of transitional fossils. Darwin really wanted (I believe his name was) Charles Lyle’s support for evolution, but Lyle, a paleontologist (among other things) considered the “Newton” of his era, could never come around to support Darwin and evolution because of the fossil record

[@m0RRisC2319]

@@ji8044 that’s not true at all astrobiology is a very real and legitimate non-religious scientific study of the requirements necessary for life ranging from carbon based DNA, probability of abiogenesis, frequency and intensity of extinction events, plate tectonics on a planet, etc. so yes there absolutely is a basis for determining how likely life is to exist elsewhere.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@ji8044 "How would anyone know if alien life is "extraordinarily rare"?" Google Search: Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body 1 in 10 to the 282nd power...Against.

[@m0RRisC2319]

@@ji8044 the difference is there is actual scientific basis in molecular biology for how carbon DNA based life is likely the only possibility of "life" that can contain and self replicate highly complex genes. Of course having 1 single data point limits our view but we shouldn't wonder off into science fiction fantasy land where hypothetical creatures on distant planets violate current scientific understandings of biology. I'm open to new discoveries but in the meantime we can't make stuff up about how other types of life MUST exist because "space is big". How is that any different from the "God Of The Gaps" argument but for the existence of aliens?

[@Flagrum3]

@@ji8044 First you assume there can be other types of lifeforms, i.e.; Silicon based. There is absolutely no evidence for this, and is simply imagination. Secondly, you don't consider how astronomically rare other "life bearing planets" are. Its not in the millions has proposed by atheist evolutionists, it is far, far less, if at all. There are over a hundred prerequisites required for a planet like earth to exist as a life bearing planet. Then the final point is the impossibility of life to come about, even if water exists. Not a single scholar or biologist or scientist has a clue how life came about. Anything they come up with is simply unsubstantiated assertions.

[@ammaralado5930]

Thank you for this short summary of the fossil record It seems that biology classes want us to live forever in an imaginary world called evolution

[@ammaralado5930]

@@ji8044 I agree both imaginary We go to religious places willingly They do not come to school and colleges and call themselves science class

[@rubiks6]

@@ji8044 - It could be that God creating creatures and Man by fiat is not imaginary at all. Perhaps it is real.

[@polystrate1]

Old religious paradigms like evolution die hard

[@jonkraft7428]

During the discussion about stasis, I was reminded of something one of my professors said when I was a Geology undergraduate in the 1970's. I don't remember exactly how he put it, but the idea was that a species will evolve until it is optimally adapted to its environment. At that point, any change would be a disadvantage. So, if the geologic environment is stable, there would be no need for a species to evolve further. It could be inferred that changes in the geologic environment are what drove evolution. No changes in environment = No evolutionary changes.

[@KenJackson_US]

Very convenient. But that still doesn't explain how it got there, how the body plan came to be, and especially how the proteins came to be coded in DNA.

[@polystrate1]

Don't really need environmental changes to increase ability. Sounds like apologetics

[@TrevoltIV]

They can make up stories all the want but at the end of the day, their number one prediction is in fact not seen in the fossil record.

[@ConservativeMirror]

What is the explanation for these sudden appearances? Did God create disparate species with millions of years in between? Why would he do it that way instead of all together as the 6-day creationists believe? Why did God create species later in time that have features that resemble those in species created earlier?

[@thorndupay1932]

"Promosm"

[@steadfastneasy26]

@Discovery Science Ok fellas, I'm a bit confused. You are advocating the position for a Creator, yet this gentleman speaks as though there are millions and billions of years gone by. These two ideas are incongruent to one another. If Evolutionism were true then you would need all of that time and some new research suggests it still wouldn't be enough to fill the needs of so-called biological evolution. If Evolutionism is false or an outright lie then the fossil record has no need for that amount of time given the evidence procured from it thus far. There are no transitional fossils because there were no transitions. Pretty simple, wouldn't you say? All fossils ..... let me repeat myself ..... *ALL FOSSILS* go back to Noah's Flood. None were formed prior to that event (no rain) and very few (essentially none) have been formed since then. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones should point this out to you.

[@KenJackson_US]

*Steadfast:* _"These two ideas are incongruent to one another."_ You are correct. He's making arguments from within the erroneous evolutionist world view.

[@rubiks6]

@@KenJackson_US -It's not that "millions and billions of years" is incongruent with a Creator. It is that "millions and billions of years" is incongruent with *_the Creator's narrative_* found in Genesis 1.

[@RickDelmonico]

The "G" in recognize is not silent.

[@vincentrockel1149]

I will never understand why evolution seems so threatening to the religious. I guess when you bank on a document written by men, claiming authorship by God, you paint yourself into an uncomfortable corner. Evolution doesn't discount God, it just challenges the narrative in the bible.

[@polystrate1]

Both are wrong

[@302indian]

You haven’t read the fine print. The so called theory of evolution certainly does rule out any idea of God.

[@cariyaputta]

Is this channel bought by a creationist?

[@steadfastneasy26]

@cariyaputta Your question is irrelevant since what is presented are facts.

[@rubiks6]

@@steadfastneasy26 - These are not facts. These are opinions. Many of the ideas presented are mere conjectures.

[@steadfastneasy26]

@@rubiks6 It is good that you say many instead of all because there truly are actual facts presented here. The most important one being that life can only come from life. Next would be that there is no generational succession line of fossils showing any one creature becoming anything other than what it was. There are others but that will suffice.

[@edluckenbill9382]

Wow disinformation .

[@edluckenbill9382]

Channel will be reported for disinformation.

[@steveoneil5332]

Why don’t you try making an argument instead of promoting censorship?

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

And That Disinformation is...What?

[@BhikPersonal]

Science is about testing the very thing you believe in or try to prove. If you can't handle opposing views, then you don't have confidence in what you believe in.

[@chinookwind8535]

Don't let your panties get tied into a knot hyperventilating and huffing and puffing about this video

[@mugdiller2124]

@@steveoneil5332 What's the point of being a fascist if you need to work at arguments?