Replies

The astute lurker is invited to note that after all that silly blue spew, the evidence picture for very early complex life is, minus one typo, exactly as I characterized it in post 23.

Schroeder's claim looks to me to be based upon Schopf's identification of cyanobacteria in 3.5 ~~million~~ billion-year-old Australian rock, a claim which is no longer widely accepted and which Schopf at least for a time withdrew. Most people now think these "fossils" are in fact carbon from geological processes. I believe the next-oldest (and non-controversial) fossils are quite a bit younger. Schroeder is thus making hay with "evidence" of very shaky status.

I've read the articles you linked and did some additional research to see if I could find where Schopf withdrew his assertions. If there is such a statement by Schopf, would you please direct me to it?

I have found a lot of challenge and cross-challenge, but by all appearances the issue is not settled. Following is a seminar scheduled for November to air the issues:

First Announcement: The Hunt for Precambrian Life: An Integrated Approach

For Lurkers, here is a summary of the challenge and cross challenge:

Ancient Fossils or Just Plain Rock In the above article it appears the challengers are arguing along the same lines as the irreducible complexity debate that betty boop previously examined. IOW, in that debate the rebuttal was that any plausible theory defeats the claim of irreducible complexity. As an example, here is an excerpt from the above article:

Fossil claims, Brasier writes in his email, "are better tested by falsification rather than by justification. To that end, our research group urges that future studies (older than, say, 3.0 billion years) should explore the following null hypothesis: that very ancient/alien microfossil-like structures … should not be accepted as of biological origin until all possibilities of their non-biologic origin have been tested and can be falsified."

Or to paraphrase that in the "irreducible complexity" debate:

Claims of irreducible complexity are better tested by falsification rather than by justification. To that end, evolutionists urge that future studies of flagella should explore the following null hypothesis: that such structures … should not be accepted as irreducibly complex until all possibilities of their biologic origin can be falsified.

Or to sum it up, IMHO both challenges sound like an assertion of intellectual prejudice --- perhaps to maintain a materialist paradigm?

The astute lurker is invited to note that after all that silly blue spew,

Thanks for the concession - slime as usual showing what a low life you are, but a concession nevertheless. You are contradicting what evolutionists have said, continue to say, and you yourself have said just because a Christian dared to say it. Shows the total dishonesty and doubletalk of evolutionists as well as the knee-jerk story telling you folk indulge in.