Replies

"'"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?"

Neither. They developed either late Cambrian or post-Cambrian. One good example is that there were no flowering plants.

"'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."

I would like you to explain how insisting that an argument be presented from evidence is "blind faith." Please! Explain this to me. I repeat, "how is insisting that an argument be presented from evidence an instance of blind faith"? The foolishness of that accusation seems to leap out at me.

"'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?

Perhaps I should have clarified my statement and written there is only a mathematical line of reasoning which argues from probability that more should have appeared. This is another way of saying that you cannot develop the history of life as presented in the fossil record by deduction from premises. You must approach it by an examination of the evidence it reveals. If the evidence showed that all phyla developed suddenly in the Cambrian, which it does not as you have suggested, then that would be a problem. But since the evidence shows that diversity in phyla developed at least as early as the Vendian Period and continued after the Cambrian, I see no difficulty in explaining the process. And this is a conclusion drawn from observation of evidence, not "blind faith."

"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.

First of all, the "confirmation" you speak of, and it is described as "confirmed" in the followup article you linked, is still in doubt with many paleontologists, but I suspect it may indeed be the oldest vertebrate. That is just a layman's opinion.

But I am in no way troubled by the possibility that it could be the oldest vertebrate fossil. Please read the following quote from the article on the abc.net Australia site for which you provided a link:

". . . If the claims are true, it would mean that the date of the earliest vertebrate would have been pushed back by 30 million years. The earliest generally agreed vertebrate is a 530 million year old fish fossil found in China. . . ."

Now, do the arithmetic. 530 million years plus 30 million years equals 560 million years for the date of the oldest vertebrate fossil. Does this present a problem in the evolutionary record? Absolutely not! If we describe the characteristics of the Cambrian Period as typified by the rise of vertebrate life we would have to recognize that there must have been some point at which it begins. If the find is a vertebrate life form, as many paleontologists believe it is, this would push back the emergence of vertebrate life to just before the beginning of the Cambrian. That makes perfect sense to me, and to paleontologists, since it is difficult to believe that complex life forms like vertebrates just suddenly appeared in the Cambrian as if by magic. In fact, if you think about it, you should realize that the information you have posted, and I am grateful for your doing so, establishes a more gradual timeline for the emergence of complex life than that which many Intelligent Design theorists believe occurred in the "Cambrian Explosion." No; the explosion had origins in time that were more gradual in nature. Instead of compressing the emergence of vertebrate life into a time period of 50 million years we can now add 30 million more years to the process and see the argument for a more gradual evolution of complex life strengthened significantly.

". . . 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. . . ."

I will not comment on your religious views since I respect anyone and everyone's right to their own faith. My comments are addressed to the application of biblical text to scientific reasoning. I believe the history of man that is revealed in the Bible is a history of the spiritual evolution of humanity, not the material origins of the human form. As for what you describe as "faulty radiometric dating" I can only say that Creationist arguments against it have been exploded so completely as to make it a non-issue with anyone who is willing to examine the science in good faith. What is at stake in radiometric dating is nuclear physics and you can no more discount the viability of radiometric dating, which looks at radioactive decay of isotopes, than you can discount the rest of nuclear science. Atomic bombs actually do work.

But take the issue of the Geologic Column out of nuclear physics for a moment and return to the original challenge I presented with respect to the ways Geologists work in the search for oil. I have a significant understanding of this (for a "layman") because I have been around the oil business all my life -- I live in Lafayette, Louisiana, a major oil town. My late father was a Petroleum Engineer and, as a result of my access to his work, I have witnessed the way in which proposals for oil drilling projects are prepared. I've even sat in on meetings in which Geologists come in and present their findings on the potential viability of this or that project and I have seen the way this evidence is examined. I will skip giving a full narrative of how the process works for the sake of brevity, but I want to mention one key aspect of it, the way external "core sample" analysis is presented.

"Core samples" are cylindrical cuttings of rock that are extracted from subterranean rock formations and taken to laboratories for analysis. The first step in this process is to use radiometric dating to place samples within a particular geologic age. Much more is done after this, including microscopic evaluation of the contents of rocks if they are sedimentary or "metasedimentary" (partially metamorphosed) to identify what biological organisms may be fossilized within the rock, and what they are looking for is fossilized plant life. Core samples are stored in major research universities across the country and many states; such as Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, and California, maintain records of the analyses of these rocks as well as the record of successes and/or failures of drilling projects that so as to encourage development of their mineral resources. Usually, whenever a drilling project is considered, Geologists will be asked to describe what life was like in the geologic age in which the sediments comprising the rock formation in question were laid down. They will base their answers on the analysis of core samples external to the site in question, but extracted from formations of the same time period elsewhere. And when they present this analysis companies or investment groups considering the drilling project will check what the Geologists are saying by going to the body of knowledge that has been collected from other core samples to see if everything matches up chronologically. They will go to these universities and examine the core samples from the same time period themselves and discuss the analysis presented to them with professors of Geology and Geophysics. They will contact the departments of the various state governments which maintain their records, which are now in database form in some states, like Louisiana, and try to ascertain the record of success when drilling in formations dated to the period in question. And before they decide to do anything they will reexamine all of this taken together as one.

It is based upon such findings as are generated from core samples, which begin with radiometric dating of their age, that decisions are made that will risk tens of millions of dollars for land drilling projects or hundreds of millions of dollars for offshore drilling. Do Creationists really believe that the people who take these risks, which in the case of investment groups are risking their own personal money, do so based upon some "act of blind faith"? GET REAL! These are businessmen and businesswomen who have everything at stake, including their own jobs and the financial viability of the companies with which they work at stake. And what about the fact that, when using the body of knowledge derived from Geology, which in the case of the search for oil begins with the Geologic Column, THEY ACTUALLY FIND OIL! Do Creationists believe this is just blind luck?

It is for reasons such as these that I am astounded to hear that anyone can say with a straight face that the Geologic Column's use of radiometric dating is flawed. There are billions upon billions of dollars wagered every year, and with an increasing record of success, that its dating characteristics are sound.

If anyone wants to argue that the Geologic Column is flawed in terms of its use of radiometric dating, they should explain how the search for oil succeeds in spite of these flaws.