"It's just a flesh wound!"
Posted on 02/06/2009 8:08:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
This article does not prove that the world is 6,000 years old and that every living thing that currently exists spontaneously emerged at that time with no development that led up to their current forms.
The Almighty can develop the galaxies, the stars, the planets and life any way He pleases — including development in phases and stages.
The evidence is clear that the vast majority of living things that ever existed are extinct and have been for, well, look at the Grand Canyon. Anyone who says those layers took a few thousands of years to form should not be taken seriously.
Addressing the specifics, the Proterozoic Era is where life first developed. The division line between that and the subsequent Paleozoic Era is characterized by the establishment of multicellular organisms. If further evidence necessitates moving the division line, so be it.
Science is subject to revision. Dogma is not.
This from someone who apparently points to Middle Cambrian events as the start of the Cambrian Explosion...
The fossil image in post #11 is pre-Cambrian, from the Edicarian. Has bilateral symmetery. This is indicative of the imprints you said in the earlier post were not life. I guess that's how you 'splain away that inconvient pre-Cambrain life.
Oh, and stromatolites are over 3 billion years old. We still have some around today in Shark Bay, Australia, so you can't claim THOSE are not fossils.
** snork **
So I'll assume you don't believe that the layers of rock were laid down by the Flood, and the Canyon itself was created during the run-off phase of the Flood?
Refer to post 40.
"It's just a flesh wound!"
My rebuttal.
You never mentioned that in the original thread. Here is the exchange, minus your snarkiness:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2177494/posts?q=1&;page=101
dirtboy: "Well, then explain to us how there are only very simple organisms in Pre-Cambrian rocks."
you: "First, nothing in so-called pre-cambrian rocks has been successfully demonstrated to be the result of life at all.
I was discussing Edicarian fauna specifically. You never even mentioned Gould's book. Now we have ID'ers presenting as proof of their theories embryos in pre-Cambrian rock. Kinda trips up your assertion that "nothing in so-called pre-cambrian rocks has been successfully demonstrated to be the result of life at all", doesn't it?
I’m not doubting anyone; I’m asking a question.
actually, this find has nothing at all to do with evolutionary theory. This doesn’t change the scientific theory of evolution at all. It doesn’t invalidate the mechanism, or changed what is already known about the ability of DNA to mutate that has been observed in labs and tested by scientific methods.
This find has to do with the historical stories that are sometimes passed of as “scientific theory” by people who want to use evolution to push their ideas, and to mock as “unscientific” other hypotheses about how we came to be on this planet.
This find, like many others, alters the story, which will now be re-written to include this latest data point.
You should be glad that this story was not really the science of evolution.
Because if it were, then the prediction of evolution would be that you would NOT find a fossil like this, and this fossil would show that the current theory was incorrect.
But all we’ve really done is shown that the “facts” that are taught as scientific theory in our classrooms are not facts at all, but hypotheses, conjectures, and sometimes storytelling that can be invalidated at any time when we find actual physical evidence.
It’s like saying you have a scientific theory of cars that explains why a car is found in the parking lot. Sure, cars run on a series of principles that are founded in science, but none of that science really predicts or requires that a particular car be in a particular space in a parking lot.
You are correct, my use of “theory” in my last word was an error, it should have been “framework” again.
Scientists used to think that subatomic partices swirled about within the atom like a pudding, until an experiment showed they were clustered in a nucleus. That did not invalidate previous research into the chemical nature of the elements - the nature of elements as we understand them in our lives. I see nothing in this story that invalidates basic evolutionary theory, mainly because I am not bound by dogma. I don't agree with all aspects of Darwinism myself. But the basic geologica reality still stands. Pushing back a particular evolutionary and geological horizon 20 million years is nothing compared to the overall age of the Earth.
Unless of course something is wrong with this entire premise in the first place.
Well, given this article is an attempt by IDers to say Precambrian life was complex, it kinda undercuts Young Earth arguments.
Well, given the age of the rocks in question, and the fact that so few such rocks survive in unmetamorphized form, there isn't a lot of evidence readily available. However, you can see in the fossil record that many significant families simply are not present in the older rocks. No amphibians, reptiles, mammals or birds are in Cambrian rocks. So some kind of change is happening over millions of years.
Their theories about the Cambrian explosion have been completely disproved and annihilated by this earth-shattering discovery.
Mind explaining your position in a little more depth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.