Arguments Against Old Earth Theory

[-57]

The Cambrian explosion spanned tens of millions of years, there was no popping into existence then.

Whwn will you evos realize that when the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

In other word, you don't see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Instead, as mentioned above, the Cambrian geological record contains fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor....the mutations are not show to add up.

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

The question becomes:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there as the T.O.E. predict they should?

Instead, a major problem for evolutionism is recognized. The geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the Cambrian strata are already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don't present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be pretty much up-side-down.

 

[-57]

I'm not familiar with all these. But I believe the Noahic flood was more a local flood. There are several theories about this. As for determining the age of the earth, the best evidence for an old earth, in my very primitive understanding, has to do with the expanding universe and observations of the cosmos.

As a believer in the bible I have to believe the flood was world wide...simply because the wording of the bible tells us it was. (just for the record, so does science)

 

[-57]

I'm not familiar with all these. But I believe the Noahic flood was more a local flood. There are several theories about this. As for determining the age of the earth, the best evidence for an old earth, in my very primitive understanding, has to do with the expanding universe and observations of the cosmos.

You might find this very interesting

 

[PapaZoom]

Whwn will you evos realize that when the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

In other word, you don't see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Instead, as mentioned above, the Cambrian geological record contains fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor....the mutations are not show to add up.

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

The question becomes:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there as the T.O.E. predict they should?

Instead, a major problem for evolutionism is recognized. The geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the Cambrian strata are already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don't present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be pretty much up-side-down.

this is the way I understand it as well

 

[Loudmouth]

You'd have to clarify what you mean by TOE because there's more than one way to understand that. We observe evolution in nature, that's undeniable. But to what extent? Also, which model of TOE? There is more than one right?

There is only one theory of evolution, and it covers all biodiversity.

 

[Loudmouth]

this is the way I understand it as well

Then you understand it incorrectly. All of the fossils in Cambrian deposits belong to a genus, just like modern species do.

Also, we would expect the origin of phyla in the earliest sediments if evolution is true. The pattern exactly matches what we would expect from evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Whwn will you evos realize that when the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

How did you determine that they have no ancestors?

In other word, you don't see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

All of those fossils belong to a genus.

Instead, as mentioned above, the Cambrian geological record contains fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor....the mutations are not show to add up.

Evolution doesn't require slow divergence of phenotype.

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

Where did you demonstrate that Cambrian species do not share a common ancestor?

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there as the T.O.E. predict they should?

No one has shown that these fossils don't exist. They also haven't shown that every Cambrian species has an existing fossil specimen.

 

[PapaZoom]

There is only one theory of evolution, and it covers all biodiversity.

Darwinian theory then. Correct?

 

[PapaZoom]

Then you understand it incorrectly. All of the fossils in Cambrian deposits belong to a genus, just like modern species do.

Also, we would expect the origin of phyla in the earliest sediments if evolution is true. The pattern exactly matches what we would expect from evolution.

Not what I've read. It troubled Darwin as I understand it. In the Cambrian you have new and unique body plans with no precursors in geologic history.

 

[PapaZoom]

How did you determine that they have no ancestors?



All of those fossils belong to a genus.



Evolution doesn't require slow divergence of phenotype.



Where did you demonstrate that Cambrian species do not share a common ancestor?



No one has shown that these fossils don't exist. They also haven't shown that every Cambrian species has an existing fossil specimen.

You can't show that something doesn't exist. Only that it does. An as far as I've read the Cambrian is an example of an explosion of new life forms with new body plans far more complex than that of previous body plans.

 

[Loudmouth]

Darwinian theory then. Correct?

Just the theory of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can't show that something doesn't exist. Only that it does.

Hence the problem with the claim that these fossils don't have any ancestors.

An as far as I've read the Cambrian is an example of an explosion of new life forms with new body plans far more complex than that of previous body plans.

This is a problem for the theory of evolution how?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not what I've read. It troubled Darwin as I understand it.

He wrote an entire chapter in "Origin of Species" on why it didn't bother him, summing it up thusly:

"The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

Darwin recognized that it wasn't the fossil record that was incomplete, but the geologic record that was incomplete.

In the Cambrian you have new and unique body plans with no precursors in geologic history.

How did you determine that there were no precursors?

 

[PapaZoom]

Just the theory of evolution.

Well that doesn't help me. As I understand it, when someone talks about TOE they mean the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. What am I missing?

 

[PapaZoom]

Hence the problem with the claim that these fossils don't have any ancestors.

This is a problem for the theory of evolution how?

Well it seems obvious that there's a question as to how so many different types of new life forms could just come into existence and there's no evidence of any precursors to those animals. The body plans are far more complex than the animals in previous periods. What's the answer to how that's possible?

 

[PapaZoom]

He wrote an entire chapter in "Origin of Species" on why it didn't bother him, summing it up thusly:

"The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

Darwin recognized that it wasn't the fossil record that was incomplete, but the geologic record that was incomplete.

How did you determine that there were no precursors?

That's been my understanding and that even Darwin wondered about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well that doesn't help me. As I understand it, when someone talks about TOE they mean the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that they got rid of the Darwinian part a long time ago. It is just the theory of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's been my understanding and that even Darwin wondered about it.

Wondered about what?

 

[PapaZoom]

You are missing the fact that they got rid of the Darwinian part a long time ago. It is just the theory of evolution.

That I didn't know. So what's the difference then?

 

[PapaZoom]

Wondered about what?

The sudden appearance of so many new life forms in the Cambrian.