Sunday, 3 August 2014

More About The Fossil Order

Daren Hew (an objective agnost) said: "There are many other phyla that you wont find in the Cambrian. You wont find any bony fish or shark teeth in Cambrian strata for example, despite the existence of said fossils in upper strata. (There are plenty of bottom-dwelling bony fish, like flatfish that didn't get preserved in Cambrian fossil beds)"

I would say though, that since there are thousands of marine forms, should we expect a few not being there to be all that relevant? There would have been perhaps more that were obliterated. I mean, eventually, chance alone is going to create the possibility of certain burials based on whatever creatures were in that place of the particular deposition. If we DON'T assume long-ages, then the sharks in the upper-layers would also have been alive along with the organisms in the Cambrian, if most or all of the layers were part of the same flood. So logically, really all we need is sharks to be present, in any layer, if all of the layers were laid down at the same time, over weeks and months, by inundation. 

It depends on how we interpret the record. Most creation-scientists argue that fish can escape, and indeed fish are fast, but slow-movers don't. Nevertheless there is evidence of vertebrates in the Cambrian. Here are the links to the scientific articles:


"However, just last year a team of nine scientists reported well-preserved fossils of two different kinds of agnathan fish from China found in Lower Cambrian strata.10,11 The fossils are described as ‘the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found’,11 and extend the fossil range of fish by at least 20 and possibly 50 million years in evolutionary thinking. Vertebrates had now been found at the base of the Cambrian along with all the other multi-celled animals."

Quote From:

If the Cambrian, upper or lower, does not express a significant passage of time, then to find a vertebrate in the Cambrian would be enough to prove they existed at the same time of the other marine organisms, if the Cambrian is not an "era". So I can't just ASSUME the truth of the Cambrian being an evolution "era" as that would be to assume what evolutionists have to prove, on their behalf.

No but rather, it is usually requested we provide an, "out of place" fossil. This is impossible if none can be found, but even when on occasions they can be found, the scientists will then conclude the following type of reasoning:

For example they might say: "So now we have to understand how vertebrates evolved earlier".

So those who say, "show me X and this will falsify evolution", well, that's been done before and when we find X they change the goal posts.

What tends to happen, is they then request you score through another goal they create. If there is a request to find something in the Cambrian, and if it is at the top, the request will then change to, "now show me something at the bottom of the Cambrian". Pollen is found Pre-Cambrian because it is small. Surely that is enough? But the evidence is ignored, probably regarded as inexplicable, because it's only one example. (Yet Nye and the likes tell us we only need one example? Can you see the problem yet?)

All of this is assuming that the fossil record is an evolution record. Please note, we are just seeing fully formed known-forms, not an evolution in rocks. After all what are we discussing? We are discussing things that have always existed. Fish, sharks, pollen, etc....what has this got to do with evolution? Nothing.

So the "pushing back evolution" when it is "out of place" is common. It was thought mammals rose after the dinosaurs but now they are found in their bellies, you will get statements such as, "surprisingly mammals were already well developed at this stage" (example of reasoning). There is some evidence of birds in bellies of dinos too, and apparently some pre-dated dinos. (Or so I heard, IIRC)

One has to ask, logically - how many push-backs do we allow? At what stage can evolution be falsified if it is so plastic that it can be pushed back infinitely? Because we keep finding fully-formed, unchanged, sophisticated and therefore, "modern" forms. Eyes, like sophisticated Trilobite-eyes. Pollen, mammal-hair, unchanged organisms such as Jellyfish or snails, and all types of every order.

The additional problem is the apriori and posteriori claims, which highlights the difference between predictive evidence and post-knowledge evidence.

The fossil order was generally known when Darwin formed his theory, so he didn't predict the evolutionary order, he actually based it on the already-known fossil order. This is posteriori-evidence.(None-predictive)

But if he were to make a prediction that for example, "we will find intermediatesof bats", this would be apriori-evidence if it was found. (Predictive).

Predictive = Strong scientific evidence.
None-predictive = Weak scientific evidence.

To be fair to Darwin-ites, in whatever we say about the flood, if we say it because of our post-knowledge of the fossil record, then we say it in a none-predictive, weak and conjectural fashion, also.

The only difference is the bible itself, which said there was a worldwide catastrophe, BEFORE there was a discovered fossil record. This would imply a worldwide graveyard, whether it was preserved in rocks or not, left as remnants. It is reasonable to expect circumstantial remnants, given it has been shown that sediment has been found in fossilized throats. Given we know water can do this, certainly, and is the best explanation by far for all of the odd evidence around the world.


  1. I might respond in detail to this in the near future. Id also like to apologize in initially assuming there were no vertebrates in the Cambrian, which I was mistaken.

    As a brief response I ll just add a few points. Nye was wrong to say "just one fossil" because fossils have been known to be found out of order before. What happens is sometimes weathering breaks out fossils from their original position and re-deposits them in someplace new. Over time the fossil becomes buried and the ground becomes lithified again. However these fossils definitely dont represent the vast majority of fossils so is not such a problem for evolutionary theory.

    Another point about Cambrian biota. Although the majority of organisms in either the Cambrian Burgess Shale or Chengjiang formations were benthic (bottom-dwelling) there were some that definitely werent. Anomalocaris (trilobite predator) was almost certainly free-swimming. Not only that but I remember even jellyfish fossils were found in Chengjiang before. I guess the biggest question is whether the Cambrian is separated from the upper layers by space or by time? What I see is if these Cambrian lifeforms were living concurrently with more advanced creatures then the latter probably wouldnt hesitate to try and eat them regularly. Im not sure if they could even survive for long living next to advanced predators like icthyosaurs.


  2. I understand your points although the term, "advanced" seems to be a bit of an evolution-term. what does it really mean given all designs in organisms are always found to be "advanced". For examples, the trilobite's aggregate eye was very advanced, it's not conceivable how it could have evolved, strictly rationally speaking, because the probability of "hitting" all of the many exactly correct features in that eye, is incredibly low or none, given the time spans. One also has to believe by faith-in-evolution, that all of the other designs also "just happened" to hit upon the exact and correct design.

    One scientist said, pertaining to the aggregate eye, that it designed itself to solve Fermat’s principle, Abbé’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals. (I quote near word-for-word, this is not my knowledge of course, so I am not pretending to have knowledge that I don't have.)

    I think for echolocation in bats, oil-birds and whales, some 200 shared genes by coincidence, are required, which is inconceivably silly to believe happened by chance even with pressure from design-constrant. I don't say that to insult evolutionists, I just think it takes tremendous faith to believe that every single elegant organism, with a whole host of such designs in all kinds of various and even unique examples, all happened from a simple process.

    The avian lung is unique, too, although you would expect to see birds with bellows-type lungs, the same as bats, because to create a contraflow-lung is to basically navigate Everest on the way to the shops to buy some milk, whereas we would expect evolution to take the path-of-least-resistance, since it has no foresight or mind, we would expect the avian lung to be modified by descent, like with bats.

    Naturally we will not change eachothers mind, but that's ok Daren, I don't hold it against you anyway, it's just how you see the evidence, you are convinced the evidence shows evolution, I am convinced it shows design. We could exchange conjecture indefinitely, but we won't convert eachother. But it's always fun to learn more anyway.

    sometimes I do wonder, we all do - especially because of a world of suffering and our own personal struggles, I myself struggle even though I've been shown so much personal evidence, sometimes I really do wish to "know" the answers to the degree of 100% so that I might let out a very great *sigh*, because I always want to know the truth even if that truth is painful.

    i asked God three times pretty much if He really did create rather than evolve, and He gives me the same answer each time, from Psalm 100:

    "Know that the Lord, He is God, it is He who made us, and not we ourselves".

    (coincidence?) :-) Could be, but I still believe design is the best answer, even if long ages were somehow true. I can't see how or where the evidence for the hundreds of chains of transitionals, can be ignored.

  3. Oh it's ok Daren, thanks for being honest about the mistake of vertebrates in the Cambrian, don't worry we all make mistakes, I am not omniscient either, and we all collect knowledge sometimes in half-baked form, or second-hand knowledge, I do it myself all the time.

    Strictly speaking, technically, you could argue for an earlier evolution of vertebrates. Technically, okay - it's conjectural. If scientists were just honest and admitted it is not strong evidence for evolution, or at least admit that it is unfair to ask for bunnies in the Cambrian, then I wouldn't mind so much, but not everyone is honest like you.

  4. Hey. I dont actually intend to disprove design or make any Christian stumble in faith or anything but just ensure evolutionary theory is represented fairly before it stands up to criticism. Its because I find many evangelical Christians like to frame evolution as a "worldview battle" or that evolution is a theory in crisis (which evolution isnt). Theories should be scrutinised but the entire set of data must be carefully weighed before it is dismissed or accepted. I dont have a problem with evolution in general but (somewhat) understand why people may be uncomfortable with it.

    Thanks for sharing your personal struggle with me. I have been through quite a lot as well and have wondered many times if a God existed.

  5. I will work on a post next detailing my experience with a Christian fellowship on my university campus recently. It was what got me interested in the creation-evolution thing.

    I wont get into too much detail here but just say that it has been such a positive experience. I even thought once that if a God existed He must be working through them.

    1. Thanks Daren, yes despite what people say about us, I've heard it said many times that when people actually get to know Christians, they seem to acknowledge that we have something desirable and very positive about us and that is God's aim, to indwell us. Obviously when you are "born again" as Christ said, what then happens is you then receive the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, this might seem like just a religious word/name but in actual fact this is a real-life process, whereby the Christian is convicted-of-indwelling-sin problems he/she didn't even know they had. We then live out our lives in obedience to God's will.

      As we mature in faith, Christ lives out his life through us, and we grow the fruit of the spirit. If you are in contact with a Christian fellowship, perhaps you have witnessed the fruit of the spirit in their actions, as noted in Galatians chapter 5, "Love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, self-control, kindness" ETC.

      I also hope my contact with you Daren, has been a positive one, I hope I haven't come across as a bad example. I think what you will find if you stick with the fellowship even just as an outsider, is that you will continue to be amazed by all of the errors anti-theists have made about us in their complete ignorance about us. I dearly hope if anything, that is what you will find out, about their gross lies and blatant misinformation concerning us because of their hatred of our faith and fear of our God. It's kind of sad really, how far off the mark they are, when I debate them.