The Cambrian Explosion: the Case for Archeological Evidence Against Evolution
The Actual Archeological Evidence Does Not Support Evolutional Theory
One of the first things unearthed is the division between 'Cambrian' rocks and other catastrophically deposited fossil-bearing rocks. For example the kinds of creatures found fossilized in 'Cambrian' rocks once inhabited the same earth at the same time as those kinds found fossilized higher up the 'geological column'.
Evolutionists themselves, archeologists, paleontologists, curators of the worlds greatest Natural Museums of History...all have long pointed out the problem for the evolution theory, namely that all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors. This is why evolutionists refer to it as an 'explosion' of evolution. There are no groups which have been identified as ancestral to any of the phyla, and geologically these phyla 'seem to have appeared suddenly and simultaneously'. The evolutionary conundrum is this absence of ancestors. Each of the phyla represents a basic blueprint, or unique body plan. Evolution's deepest paradox is that in rock layers above the 'Cambrian' no new or different body plans appear.
Why haven't new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? According to evolution theory, enormous and radical evolutionary changes have taken place in this time, and evolution has not ceased today. So why no new 'body plans' since the time they all allegedly evolved in the Cambrian? The author of the article in question, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York, wonders, why is it, as evolutionary biologists are still trying to determine, that no new body plans have appeared during the past half a billion years? Why indeed?
There's nothing simple about a starfish. It has hundreds of tiny feet which it uses to move along by pumping water through a system of tubes. This is a method we call hydraulics, and which humans use in machinery. But the starfish, still alive today, yet found as fossils in the Cambrian rocks, had it right there in the beginning. There is no evidence the starfish has evolved. When we look at fossils in Cambrian rocks, we find that not only did these animals have no ancestors, but all the main kinds of living creatures were already there. There were animals with backbones (fish), as well as those without backbones, like shellfish, crinoids (sea lilies), and starfish. Some of these Cambrian creatures have died out, but many types are still alive, and have changed little if at all.
Why don't we find fossils of the ancestors of Cambrian animals? Evolutionists often say it is because the creatures they evolved from were too soft to fossilize. But this excuse will not do. Jellyfish are some of the softest creatures of all, and yet they have been found as fossils! The most sensible reason why we don't find transitional fossils of the ancestors of the Cambrian creatures is that they never existed!
The entire set of unique body plans ever created is represented in all rocks bearing substantial numbers of animal fossils. The 'Cambrian' creatures, many of which are now extinct, are not 'primitive ancestors' to today's, but are complex creatures in their own right. There remains no trace of evolutionary ancestors in the transitory fossil records, even after a 150 years of looking. There is not one single set of transitional fossils of any kind of species that has ever been found. Besides, evolution has never once been observed. So, spending time looking for a "missing link" seems pointless when the entire chain is missing!
Excerpt from the Book Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?, Empirical Methodologies and the Bible from:
Published by Jack Wellman
I'm a pastor at Mulvane Brethren Church (KS) & author who gives free training for Effective Evangelism at various churches in the states and have published 3 books on Amazon: "Teaching Children The Gospel",... View profile
- Missing Link MarketingIn the digital landscape, modern users ignore advertisements; instead, they proactively search for information online when they need it. The missing link is the bit of information they need to have to move towards the...
Religious Conflict Over Missing Link: Tiktaalik Fish FossilsRecently discovered in a river delta on Ellesmere Island in Arctic Canada, Tiktaalik, the missing link. With the discovery of Tiktaalik the gap in the "fish tetrapod transition"...- University of Oslo Claim: "Missing Link" FoundThis article is about the fossil found that is being touted as the "missing link."
Embryonic Planets: The Missing Link May Be Harboring in Stellar DisksResearchers at University of Rochester are studying three nearby stars that they say may hold embryonic planets within their stellar dust disks.- The Missing LinkThe microchip is one of the most important device that a pet owner can have for their pets. This is very helpful in tracking down missing animals.
- "Missing Link" Fossil Found; Proof of Evolutionary Theory?
- Human Evolution Missing Link?
- Ida, the New Missing Link: This Changes Nothing
- Evolution: The Missing Link! (Now with Added Humor!)
- The Missing Link in Teen Driver Safety
- The Galapagos Tortoise: Is it Truly a Missing Link?
- The Internet Newbie's Missing Link to Online Wealth
- There are no groups which have been identified as ancestral to any of the phyla in the Cambrian
- There is not one single set of transitional fossils of any kind of species that has ever been found
- Why no new 'body plans' since the time they all allegedly evolved in the Cambrian?
26 Comments
Post a CommentThank you sir, the feeling is mutal. I certainly enjoy learning new things & have come not near to arriving (a work in progress indeed!). It is quite obvious that you are a learned man & one gentle-man! : - ) I apologize if I can on to "heady" but let me say that you are an excellent & most formidable debater my friend. MY hats off to you. Anyway, I'm obliged & I too enjoyed it (& I have learned something-that's a win-win!.
You are an honorable man, sir. I've enjoyed the exchange immensely.
I highly respect Dr. Richard Dawkins as he honestly admits in "Climbing Mount Improbable" that "To say, as I have, that good genes can benefit from its absence, is not the same thing as explaining why sex is there at all. There are many theories of why sex exists, & none of them is knock-down convincing...Maybe one day I'll summon up the courage to tackle it in full..."(p. 86). Same thing with the eye(P.77) & a plethora of other body parts. Search "Improbable" in Dawkins' book & it is in the hundreds! So you can see that I'm not the only one who have difficulties with evolution.
You put it quite well Anthony, saying "But science was never intended to answer those questions. So I don't look to science for those answers. By the same token, I do not look to religion when I want answers about the natural world." This is an excellent observation & you are right on it. The Bible is not a science book for sure. I know that God can not found by experimental, or beaker science & I respect your point of view, with all due respect. No, these scientists (etc.) are not claiming anything beyond reason, but have only theories to depend upon(just as I do, for there is much I have no clue on also). I appreciate your comments & interest. You are well adept in science & language.
"you can trust assuming about as far as you can throw it."
Fair enough. But not all assumptions are created equal. If I see a turtle sitting on top of a fence post, is it more realistic to assume that he got there naturally (someone put him there), supernaturally (fairies put him there), or extraterrestrially (aliens put him there)?
"To both I can easily say that I never have witnessed such, but neither has any scientist, biologist, evolutionist, etc.(humanity included), have they?"
They are not the ones claiming to, are they?
I'm not going to argue with you about the Bible. I'll just say this:
There are questions that science cannot answer....such as "what is my purpose in life?" "what is good and evil?" "how can I put my trials and tribulations into perspective?" etc. But science was never intended to answer those questions. So I don't look to science for those answers. By the same token, I do not look to religion when I want answers about the natural world.
It is not difficult to believe Someone that is openly acknowledged as the Creator (Jesus Christ in John 1-1-8) & He is an actual historical fact, & the evidence is so overwhelming for His existence, life, death & resurrection of Jesus Christ that it can not be ignored, including His death & ressurection. http://www.ovimagazine.com/art/2803
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1692695/jesus_christ_an_historical_fact.html?cat=34 http://www.ovimagazine.com/art/4188 The evidence of Jesus life, death & resurrection, like the statue of limitations doesn't expire on murder, has hundreds of eye-witnesses. I am certain of Him & His Word, not just assuming.
Your second question has 2 parts, One "Do you have credible scientific evidence of an observable or observed supernatural phenomenon or entity capable of the spontaneous creation of life forms?" & "Do you have credible evidence of an observed or observable extraterrestrial phenomenon or entity capable of the spontaneous creation of life forms?" To both I can easily say that I never have witnessed such, but neither has any scientist, biologist, evolutionist, etc.(humanity included), have they? I am glad to have the freedom of choice of worship but it is by His testimony (2 Timothy 1:8, 12) that I am persuaded & not ashamed. A critique of Romans chapter 1 talks of nature as reflective of His existence, & John 1:1-10 tells Who the actual Creator was (not Who most might think).
I think we can effectively conclude that at least that Elvis was not the cause. You ask some critically important questions. I am not interested in winning or losing any debate, because I am not the one to decided that. I second you saying that "In science, we assume the natural", but there is nothing concrete about assuming, since our neighbors assumed their child would graduate college (he dropped out), so you can trust assuming about as far as you can throw it. I notice that science holds only to a theory as to how life originated; again based upon hypothesis, theories, & assumptions for which it's only evidence is more theories (Steady state theory, string theory, etc.). I "assume" you believe in some sort of Spontaneous Generation of life; which is no less "supernatural, metaphysical or paranormal" than what is called Creation Theory.
ahead, man. Seriously. I don't care. But until you can provide evidence other than "it just couldn't have happened naturally because I said so and so did a bunch of other smart people," then you: do. not. have. a. scientific. theory. Because: In science, we assume the natural and leave the supernatural, the metaphysical and the paranormal to everyone else.
I'm going to ask you two questions. If you can truthfully answer "yes" to either of them, I will concede the debate, declare you the winner, nominate you for a Nobel and publish an article singing your praises.
Question 1: Do you have conclusive evidence that the diversity of life on planet Earth can not be explained through natural, observable means, or through naturally occuring phenomena within a reasonable standard of doubt, leaving us no plausible explanation other than spontaneous creation by an extraterrestrial or supernatural phenomenon or entity?
Question 2: Do you have credible scientific evidence of an observable or observed supernatural phenomenon or entity capable of the spontaneous creation of life forms, OR Do you have credible evidence of an observed or observable extraterrestrial phenomenon or entity capable of the spontaneous creation of life forms?
I also say this:
Dude.....if you want to believe that god, buddha, aliens, or elvis started life on earth, go