Replies

"Specifically...

All 26 phylla suddenly appear in the 50 million year Cambrian explosion, shouldn't there have been more over the next 500 million years?"

Before we get to the falsity of this claim, the answer is not if the evidence doesn't present the case. There is no line of reasoning which says that more should have appeared except a mathematical postulation based upon predefined premises of probability which argue they should have done so. Applying such a "postulated," i.e. "axiomatic," approach does not have value for presenting a case for what actually happened. The only way that case can be presented is to view the evidence that exists, which Creationists refuse to do, or, as you will see with what follows, which they misstate in presenting "facts" that are simply not true. The logical chain of events that matters to support evolution is that the fossil record should present increasing diversity and disparity over time, which it does. Or do you want to return to answersingenesis.com and try to argue that dinosaurs have been found intermixed with modern life forms? LOL! Go ahead and try that one if you want!

No, it is not true that all currently existing phyla developed in one 50 million year period during the Cambrian period or, as others argue, that they appear in their current forms. There were no plant, fungus, or microbe groups for starters and the evolution of forms for all groups has continued ever since. And there are distinct phyla evident in the Pre-Cambrian. Do I have to present links to prove this? Will it matter?

". . . Doesn't a vertebrate from the Vendium period destroy the carefully constructed progression presented by the evolutionist community which had the vertebrates not evolving until late cambrian? . . . "

Pray tell, what vertebrate are you talking about? I hope you don't mean Spriggina from the examples I posted. You can clear this up for us.

". . . DannyTN, an "idot" who believes in God, the Bible, Creation, . . ."

Well I believe in God and the spiritual truth of the Bible -- I agree with Pope John Paul II that the Bible is not a scientific text presenting a history of the origins of the material form of man -- and I believe God created the universe, though the nature of God is unknowable to man and that creation cannot be explained in rational scientific demonstration.

". . . and who doesn't buy the evolutionist's interpretation or dating of the geologic column. . . ."

I'd like to hear your explanation as to how Geologists use the Geologic Column to examine stratigraphic layers of sediment when looking for oil and actually are able to find it using what they and others before them have observed. If the Geologic Column is incorrect as so many Creationists claim, then you must be arguing it is blind luck that they can actually tell oil companies where to drill for oil and, when that is done, oil is found.

". . . And who believes man is pretty arrogant to challenge God on past events when man didn't even know what a dinosaur was two hundred years ago; can't create life; doesn't know how most DNA works; can't create matter, a planet, much less a solar system or galaxy or a billion galaxies; and has a very incomplete knowledge of physics;

No one is challenging God. The Theory of Evolution is viewed by many, including myself, as an explanation for the material origins of the human form and is not to be taken to undermine the existence of man's spiritual being or the origins of his soul as derived from God. Pope John Paul II has said the same thing and I will now quote him as such -- how many threads have I used this one on Patrick? -- from his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

". . . Today . . . new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. . . . It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. . . . If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God . . ."

One only sees conflict between Evolution and the Bible if you insist that the spiritual and material histories of man have the same beginning. I do not. And my belief in no way denies God.

... how many threads have I used this one on Patrick?

Quite a few now, and there will be no end to it. I've been mentioning the Galileo affair for about five years on this website, and I've posted links to the Pope's 1996 statement for almost that long. It never makes a difference -- at least not to those who remain to fight what they consider to be the "good fight."

I understand that the Pope isn't regarded as authoritative by most Americans. Still, he is very well advised in matters of science; so even if one doesn't consider himself bound by such statements, it's very useful to review his opinion on the matter. It's rather well reasoned. And it embraces Galileo's method of reconciling apparent science/scripture conflicts. I regard it as very significant. It's an intellectual milestone in the history of the West, really -- it marks the end of the Galileo affair.

Some denominations seem determined to be left behind, as the rest of the society moves on. Like the world of Islam, they will be increasingly isolated from our civilization, and increasingly embittered. Even now, on this website, we can see their adherents waging what they call "spiritual warfare" against science. Google that expression. There is a whole genra of books on the subject. It's a comic-book way of presenting a war against reason -- a most unhealthy situation.

We're not just talking about some quibbles concerning the theory of evolution. The issues go way beyond that.

"There were no plant, fungus, or microbe groups for starters "

Are you saying these didn't exist in the Cambrian or that they developed pre-cambrian?

"the answer is not if the evidence doesn't present the case."

That sounds like blind faith. So whatever happened, happened and must be the result of evolution even if it's not what we would expect.

"There is no line of reasoning which says that more should have appeared"

I think there is a line of reasoning that says that diversity would continue to develop new phyla. I don't understand what would limit it. Are you suggesting there is a natural limit and what would that be?

Pray tell, what vertebrate are you talking about? I hope you don't mean Spriggina

I believe the name is "Charnia". Below is the ABC article. AIG reports that since that article, the fossil has been confirmed as the oldest vertebrate.

ABC article

Follow up article

Pope says..."..." One only sees conflict between Evolution and the Bible if you insist that the spiritual and material histories of man have the same beginning.

I respectfully disagree with the Pope. I believe the Bible makes a very strong case for a literal 7 day creation. And while I admit that evolutionists have built an elaborate case for old ages, I believe that much of that case can be tied to faulty radiometric dating, especially potassium Argon dating, and biased interpretations of the evidence.

6 Days
How long were the days