Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
We have evidence that the Sun was shining before the Cambrian, contrary to the claims made in Genesis 1.
Wrong. Look again. The Cambrian comes after the sun.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We have evidence that the Sun was shining before the Cambrian, contrary to the claims made in Genesis 1.
Wrong. Look again. The Cambrian comes after the sun.
You put plants as the Cambrian or after. Therefore, the Sun has to be after the Cambrian according to the Bible.
No plants are on earliest earth according to Genesis. The sun comes prior to the Cambrian.
Plants come prior the Sun in Genesis, so we should see fruit trees in the Pre-Cambrian, and we don't.
Only God can create ex nihilo.
Plants before the Cambrian evidence:
First Land Plants and Fungi Changed Earth's Climate, Paving the Way for Explosive Evolution of Land Animals, New Gene Study Suggests — Eberly College of Science
I am taking a quote from the article but please read the entire article to have the full information.
"Our research shows that land plants and fungi evolved much earlier than previously thought before the Snowball Earth and Cambrian Explosion events suggesting their presence could have had a profound effect on the climate and the evolution of life on Earth," says Blair Hedges, an evolutionary biologist and leader of the Penn State research team that performed the study.
The full paper is here: http://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/Hist...ll2008/Week10a/Heckman_et_al_Science_2008.pdf
It appears that they are actually running a model rather than having actual fossils. Since the paper was published in 2001 I'll have to check out some of the citations concerning that paper to see if it stands subsequent scrutiny. One thing that throws up a flag for me is the idea that those plants are responsible for oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere. The reason I would question that is that I don't see any land life being able to survive without an ozone layer. All of the papers I have previously read pertaining to the origin of Earth Atmosphere (and it's been quite a few), show photosynthesis occurring in shallow seas where UVB and UVC cannot penetrate. More later.
Yes, marine, not terrestrial.
I think what (Heckman et al, 2001) did was to model a sequence that suggested the possibility they reported. I would agree with that. But I think they shot themselves in the foot overlooking the UV problem.