Cambrian Explosion

[Asimov]

Creationists have the truth, so why would they need a theory? Science is the one that has to keep coming up with different theorys to explain the various things we keep finding in the world of nature.

What truth is that? That the Earth is 6,000 years old? That there are separately created kinds? That there was a global flood?

Can you provide facts to back these up, John, or are you just going to keep providing meaningless posts?

 

[JohnR7]

What truth is that? That the Earth is 6,000 years old? That there are separately created kinds? That there was a global flood?

Can you provide facts to back these up, John, or are you just going to keep providing meaningless posts?

First we have to define the facts. Just what do you mean by "earth". There is some common ground between science and the Bible. The earth as we now know it is indeed about 6000 years old. The scientific evidence indicates that there was a old earth here before and the seeds of the new were contained in the old. You know I am GAP, so why would you ask me a question that you would address to a YEC?

 

[Asimov]

First we have to define the facts. Just what do you mean by "earth". There is some common ground between science and the Bible. The earth as we now know it is indeed about 6000 years old. The scientific evidence indicates that there was a old earth here before and the seeds of the new were contained in the old. You know I am GAP, so why would you ask me a question that you would address to a YEC?

You all sound the same to me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

4. lay eggs
5. don't 't milk their young

Is it your claim that we could classify things that don't lay eggs and that milk their young as fish?

LOL, no relax that is not my claim.

Why not simply remove the classifcation that they are Aquatic? By the standards you are using, that is as arbitrary as anything else.

Really people you are taking this too seriously. lol

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not sure why you are arguing that ALL traits are equal in the classification structure:
When classifying things, certain attributes are MORE IMPORTANT than others.

When classifying a tree, we wouldn't put a decidious tree with a coniferious tree JUST BECAUSE they had axial branches. No. They have much LARGER differences:

Now correct me if i'm wrong here but i'm pretty sure that classification is done SOLELY with physiological features AND habitat plays NO role in defining a species (that is "Fishes are aquatic" is true but it is NOT a defining feature of the PHYSIOLOGY).
And dolphins are as like fish, as you are like an ostrich. You should NOT be saying dolphins are fish...

I am not saying that dolphins are fish. Please read the whole thing before making a response.

 

[caravelair]

What evidence could there be that would show they did not exist back then?

well, i for one, think that the evidence we have now quite strongly indicates that they did not exist back then. if you think we can't show that they did not exist back then, this renders the prediction unfalsifiable.

but if we can't show that grasses didn't exist back then, well we can't show that anything else did not exist in the past either. this is why it renders all of genesis unfalsifiable.

you see, genesis makes predictions about order in the fossil record, correct? these predictions are of the form species X (or genus X, or family X) existed at time A. the only way to falsify such a prediction is to show that X did not exist at time A. if we cannot do this, as you claim, then we cannot possibly falsify any such claim, thus making all such claims unfalsifiable, thus rendering genesis itself unfalsifiable. thus making it irrelevant that it does not conflict with science. do you understand?

I understand what you mean and I have said that it is at this time unfalsifiable. But you must admit that it does not mean that it could not be possible just the same.

i never said it wasn't possible, but that's not really the point. it's possible the universe was created last thursday, but that's not a falsifiable claim, so i can't test it with science.

True, my mistake using the term prove. Regardless, you can not provide evidence for a negative either.

yes you can. are you saying it's impossible to have evidence that santa claus doesn't exist? it's impossible to prove it, of course, but we certainly have enough evidence to establish his non-existence beyond any reasonable doubt.

regardless, for the sake of argument, let's say you can't have evidence that something doesn't exist. then how on earth do you expect to falsify any part of the order in genesis?

As Science has shown repeatedly, one piece of evidence can change the whole spectrum of knowledge. It can change the whole outlook of something as standard as the formation of the moon.

point being? this doesn't change the facts we have now, until we actually find this evidence!

Okay, why would it make the other orders unfalsifiable?

because if you can't show that X did not exist at time A, then there is no way to show that any part of the order is wrong. do you understand that? if you disagree, how could we possibly prove the order to be wrong?

I didn't say that Genesis is not unfalsifiable. I said that precambrian plant life was at this time.

what do you mean "at this time"? if it is unfalsifiable now, how would that change in the future?

Should they be found then it would support Genesis. That is what I am saying. Do you understand?

i do understand, but the problem is that you cannot scientifically support a claim that is not falsifiable.

 

[Mallon]

Scratch this reply.

 

[Oncedeceived]

well, i for one, think that the evidence we have now quite strongly indicates that they did not exist back then. if you think we can't show that they did not exist back then, this renders the prediction unfalsifiable.

Which I had already was true.

but if we can't show that grasses didn't exist back then, well we can't show that anything else did not exist in the past either. this is why it renders all of genesis unfalsifiable.

That is completely false. We can show that water covered the earth when it was first formed. WE can show that all living creatures first were in the oceans. We can show that mankind was the last in line of creation. We can show that the moon was formed after the earth. Those things are falsifiable and are supported by evidence.

you see, genesis makes predictions about order in the fossil record, correct? these predictions are of the form species X (or genus X, or family X) existed at time A. the only way to falsify such a prediction is to show that X did not exist at time A.

That is true of the ToE as well. ToE makes predictions that have in fact been falsified. That does nothing to falsify the entire model, which is what you are trying to do with Genesis. The plants in the precambrian scenerio is unfalsifible. That does not mean that the entire Creation model presented in Genesis is.

if we cannot do this, as you claim, then we cannot possibly falsify any such claim, thus making all such claims unfalsifiable, thus rendering genesis itself unfalsifiable. thus making it irrelevant that it does not conflict with science. do you understand?

I understand what you are saying, I just totally disagree.

i never said it wasn't possible, but that's not really the point. it's possible the universe was created last thursday, but that's not a falsifiable claim, so i can't test it with science.

Yes it is. But I assume that you meant that it was created last Thursday but looks old...right?

yes you can. are you saying it's impossible to have evidence that santa claus doesn't exist? it's impossible to prove it, of course, but we certainly have enough evidence to establish his non-existence beyond any reasonable doubt.

Santa claus was based on an actual story which is documented. Regardless, everyone knows that Santa is based on this but that he really doesn't exist. The only ones that believe of course are children who are mislead to believe it. The same is true of the pink unicorn. No one believes that a pink unicorn exists or ever existed. So it is not reasonable doubt but logical reason to understand the difference.

regardless, for the sake of argument, let's say you can't have evidence that something doesn't exist. then how on earth do you expect to falsify any part of the order in genesis?

I can support that the earth was covered with water after it was formed. I can support that the moon was formed after the earth. I can support that life first formed in the oceans. I can support that birds for instance came before cattle and other livestock. Here is a thread I started awhile back with the evidences I have in support of Genesis.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21664967#post21664967

because if you can't show that X did not exist at time A, then there is no way to show that any part of the order is wrong. do you understand that? if you disagree, how could we possibly prove the order to be wrong?

I have shown it on this thread as well as the one I provided you.

what do you mean "at this time"? if it is unfalsifiable now, how would that change in the future?

that was not in regard of unfalsifing them, but that we at this time have no evidence to support them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Scratch this reply.

Sure. uhhhh, what reply?

 

[Baggins]

That is completely false. We can show that water covered the earth when it was first formed.

Not it didn't. You can't show that at all. The earth when it first formed was far to hot for liquid water to exist for millions of years.


People now believe that oceans formed on the earth when the earth was cool enough for water to exist, but water didn't cover the earth. There is evidence of oceans at 3.8 billion years ago, but that is nearly a billion years after the formation of the earth

That is true of the ToE as well. ToE makes predictions that have in fact been falsified.

examples please

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not it didn't. You can't show that at all. The earth when it first formed was far to hot for liquid water to exist for millions of years.

True. It was present about 200 million years after the formation. I should have clarified my argument. But Scientists have always believed that it was far to hot for water to be present this early. 4.3 billion years ago is almost at formation in my view but that is a personal accessment.

People now believe that oceans formed on the earth when the earth was cool enough for water to exist, but water didn't cover the earth. There is evidence of oceans at 3.8 billion years ago, but that is nearly a billion years after the formation of the earth

Not a billion but only 200 million years after formation.

examples please

Water being present at 200 million years rather than much later as early predicted. Water now covers two-thirds of the earth and it has been determined that it was at least probable that it was that way maybe as early as 10 million years after formation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here is an article that supports what I claim.

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Diamonds Reveal Early Water World of Earth
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]posted: 02:00 pm ET
05 September 2002
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]Thanks to some gracious access to diamonds by the prestigious mining company De Beers and other firms, geologists are cracking some of the precious stones apart, figuring out just how old they are and gaining clues to Earth's early development.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]The results support a theory that just more than 3.3 billion years ago Earth was mostly a water world with little of the land that would one day become continents.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]Steven Shirey and David James of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, along with a team of researchers, examined imperfect, cast-off gems donated by large diamond miners. Minerals trapped in the diamonds represent flaws that make the stones worth little or nothing as jewelry, but they can serve as geologic clocks, Shirey explained in a telephone interview with SPACE.com.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]The researchers combined this new diamond work with the results of examinations of more than 4,000 diamonds studied during the past two decades, plus new seismic pictures of the deep diamond source region.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]Precious clues[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]Relatively little is known about the early Earth. The continents we know today were once joined in one supercontinent, called Pangaea. Prior to that era, Pangaea had grown from the gathering of small, early continents. At least that's how leading theorists see it. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] But there is precious little evidence for anything that happened back then because Earth puts so much energy into digesting its surface and spitting it back out through volcanoes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Diamonds, however, are nearly forever. They survive the chaos of planetary evolution and can even be trapped inside lava. Moreover, some of the mineral grains trapped inside some flawed diamonds are radioactive. They decay over time and produce byproducts. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Shirey and his colleagues studied the ratios of the minerals to the byproducts to learn not only how old the diamonds were but under what conditions they formed. While most diamonds have been brought to the surface relatively recently, they were typically created billions of years ago.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Every diamond that carries a grain of mineral in it has potentially some information from the source area at the time the diamond crystallized," Shirey said. "We used the diamonds as geologic probes of a portion of the mantle that would be more than 100 kilometers [62 miles] beneath the surface."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Down there, under the Earth's crust, is where continents gain their footing.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The findings[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The study, based on diamonds collected in southern Africa, supports a scenario for how Earth looked 3.3 billion years ago.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Probably it was a time when there wasn't much continent around at all, and early continental nuclei were first being generated," Shirey said. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Most of the Earth at that time was covered by water, he said. Some volcanism was probably occurring on the ocean floor. Other scientists have not been able to determine for sure whether there was life on Earth yet. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Other diamonds examined in the study were dated to a distinctly later period, some 2.9 billion years ago, when Shirey says there appeared to be collision of continental fragments and the closing of intervening ocean basins.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"This could represent a time when the continent was actually stabilized in a form like we see today," he said.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The full results will be published in the Sept. 6 issue of the journal Science.[/FONT]

 

[Nooj]

Not a billion but only 200 million years after formation.

Even with the latest research indicating oceans may have existed 3.3 billion years ago, the current estimated age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years ago. Not 200 million years, but more than a billion after formation.

 

[caravelair]

That is completely false.

it's false that we cannot possibly falsify genesis? remember, being able to potentially falsify a claim is not the same as showing evidence that is consistent with your claim. if your claim is unfalsifiable, then all evidence will be consistent with it.

We can show that water covered the earth when it was first formed.

looks like your evidence shows that it was covered with water hundreds of millions of years after it was formed, not when it was formed. either way, the point is whether you can falsify this claim. could you? how?

WE can show that all living creatures first were in the oceans.

but you can't falsify this claim, can you? suppose the earliest life we found was land life, not sea life. we can't prove that sea life didn't exist before that, could we? no more than we could prove that grasses didn't exist first. see, so your claim that sea life was first is no more falsifiable than your claim that grasses came first. if you disagree, please tell me how we could falsify this claim. do not tell me how we could support it, that is not what i'm looking for. i want to know how we could potentially falsify it.

We can show that mankind was the last in line of creation.

suppose we found man before we found birds. you couldn't prove that birds didn't exist before that, could we? you could just say it's possible that birds existed before then, and we just haven't found the evidence yet. that is exactly what you've been doing with this grasses example. so your prediction that man came last is no more falsifiable than your prediction that grasses came first. do you see where this is going? any prediction you make about order, it's impossible to falsify it because in order to do so, you would need to be able to show that species A did not exist at time X. if you can't do that, you can't falsify any of your claims about order in the fossil record.

Those things are falsifiable and are supported by evidence.

yet you have not shown me any way that i could possibly falsify them! you say we can support them with evidence, that is NOT what ii'm asking for. i am asking for how we could potentially falsify them. please tell me.

That is true of the ToE as well. ToE makes predictions that have in fact been falsified.

first of all, are you sure you read what i wrote correctly? i was talking about how one could potentially falsify the type of prediction your theory makes, i was not saying that your theories predictions had been falsified.

secondly, ToE does NOT make any predictions that have been falsified. if you disagree, please tell me what you think those predictions are.

That does nothing to falsify the entire model, which is what you are trying to do with Genesis.

one prediction falsified does falsify the whole theory. find a single unicorn, or centaur or minotaur and you have completely falsified common descent. no going back.

The plants in the precambrian scenerio is unfalsifible. That does not mean that the entire Creation model presented in Genesis is.

it does if the other predictions in genesis are no more falsifiable than the one about grasses. if you can't falsify the grass one, then i don't see how you could falsify any of the other predictions either:

we can't prove that grasses didn't exist at time X, so we can't falsify the grass prediction.

suppose we found the prediction about humans to be wrong, because birds are found later. well we can't prove that birds didn't exist at time X either, so we can't falsify that prediction either! and we could do the exact same thing with any other prediction you make about the fossil record. do you understand this? do you understand that either all these fossil record predictions are falsifiable, or none of them are?

I understand what you are saying, I just totally disagree.

and yet you have not shown me a way that we could potentially falsify even one of your predictions. it seems you have no basis on which to disagree with me.

Yes it is. But I assume that you meant that it was created last Thursday but looks old...right?

that's right, sort of like how grasses existed in the precambrian, and it just looks like they didn't.

I can support that the earth was covered with water after it was formed. I can support that the moon was formed after the earth. I can support that life first formed in the oceans. I can support that birds for instance came before cattle and other livestock.

but i didn't ask how you could support them, i asked how you could potentially falsify them. i want to know what evidence specifically would falsify these claims, if such evidence were found.

I have shown it on this thread as well as the one I provided you.

no you have not, you have shown me no way of falsifying it, so i'll ask again: the order of the fossil record that genesis predicts, how could we possibly falsify it? what evidence could we potentially find that would falsify the order?

 

[caravelair]

That is true of the ToE as well. ToE makes predictions that have in fact been falsified.

examples please

Water being present at 200 million years rather than much later as early predicted. Water now covers two-thirds of the earth and it has been determined that it was at least probable that it was that way maybe as early as 10 million years after formation.

um, how on earth is that a prediction of ToE? ToE is about biological organisms, it says nothing whatsoever about the way the earth formed, or how much water was on it, etc.

 

[Baggins]

Here is an article that supports what I claim.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica].[/FONT]

This is evidence that there was water on the earths surface 3.3 billion years ago. I gave ( admitedly unsupported ) evidence that there were oceans 3.8 billion years ago.

My evidence is better support for your position than yours is

My evidence is based on 3.8 billion year old lavas in Greenland that show pillow structures, that are interpreted to have been erupted under water.

The earth is 4.6 billion years old. 4.6-3.8 = 0.8

That leaves 800 million years between the formation of the earth and evidence of water.

You said water covered the earth at its formation, that is obviously eroneous.

And as is pointed out above ( which I hadn't noticed ) how is any of this a falsification of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

um, how on earth is that a prediction of ToE? ToE is about biological organisms, it says nothing whatsoever about the way the earth formed, or how much water was on it, etc.

Too true. I stand corrected. Forgot myself there for a minute.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is evidence that there was water on the earths surface 3.3 billion years ago. I gave ( admitedly unsupported ) evidence that there were oceans 3.8 billion years ago.

Actually, it is more like 4.3 billion years ago. The article I was citing was my support for the water covering the earth part.

My evidence is better support for your position than yours is

I have more info, I will get it later. I have to go back to work.

My evidence is based on 3.8 billion year old lavas in Greenland that show pillow structures, that are interpreted to have been erupted under water.

The earth is 4.6 billion years old. 4.6-3.8 = 0.8

That leaves 800 million years between the formation of the earth and evidence of water.

You said water covered the earth at its formation, that is obviously eroneous.

And as is pointed out above ( which I hadn't noticed ) how is any of this a falsification of the Theory of Evolution.

Have to finish this later.

 

[mark kennedy]

I thought I would toss this little snippet in to the mix just for the general interest of the posters:

"The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total (Meyer et al. 2003), and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time."

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

That is one of the most stricking giant leaps in the theory of evolution as natural history. Evolutionist speculate endlessly about symbiosis but never seem to get around to identifying the emergance of viable recursors to this rise of morphological innovation.

By the way, a Happy Easter to everyone.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Baggins]

Actually, it is more like 4.3 billion years ago. The article I was citing was my support for the water covering the earth part.

.

Do you mean covering the whole of the earth or part of it?

And what scientific evidence do you have for water on the earth 4.3 billion years ago. The oldest rocks on earth, as far as I know, are the Acasta gneisses in Canada dated to 4.03 Ga ( billion years ago ), obviously gneisses having been heavily metamorphosed will contain no information about the presence of water on the earths surface. The oldest thing on earth was a single zircon crystal dated to 4.4 Ga, but again no info there. The next yougest rocks the Isua supracrustal rocks in Greenland are the ones with the evidence of standing water at 3,8 Ga. I'm intrigued as to where this evidence for standing water at 4.3 Ga comes from. Please tell me more when you can.