For Creationists: Why Are there No Mammals in the Pre-Cambrian Layer?

[McBell]

Have you known creationists to be silent when they think they have something with which to "destroy" evolution?

With every minute that passes, my argument is affirmed more. 8^)

yet you do not answer the question....

 

[Autodidact]

OK, so I've heard the silly statement that the fossils are all a result of the great flood, and that the fossils are layered because first the smaller weaker animals would die, and then the bigger smarter ones would follow. Supposedly this explains why we find only mollusks in the lower rock layers, and more complex organisms progressively as we move up through the layers.

Here's my problem with that argument. It could only be correct if not a single mammal ever had died prior to the flood. The fact that there isn't a single rabbit, human or cat in the precambrian layer means that not a single single mammal or bird or fish could have died prior to the flood. Not even one single specimen.

Can any creationists account for this?

The ultra YEC position is that there was no death before the flood, or at least before Eden. Sin brought death into the world.

 

[Autodidact]

When asking a question to creationists one might want do it on a day that is not the Lord's day because we could be in church on that day worshiping our creator. It's ironic that the OP is pointing to early fossils as evidence for evolution when this sudden appearance of many animal groups with no known antecedents is the greatest single objection to the ToE.

Well, once again, since you know nothing about it, you would have no way of knowing. In fact cambrian fossils demonstrate exactly what ToE predicts, an emergence of species that later branch into genii, families and so forth. It represents an early branching in the tree of life.

We need to look at how fossils are formed. Most complete fossils are invariably linked to a catastrophe in some way in which they were buried quickly.

this is false.

This can be something like a flood a mudslide or landslide, a layer of volcanic ash, etc. So we see that it is possible that most fossils were formed by the great deluge which would validate the reasoning that the lower life forms would be at the bottom layers. And if a rabbit is found in Precambrian I would expect all evolutionists to fall on their knees and ask for forgiveness to God.

Yup. And, in turn, the fact that none ever has should give you pause. So, the question arises, for you, in your belief system, why are all fossils of mammals found only in new layers of rock, and never in the older, lower layers?

 

[Autodidact]

Animals float also.[/qutoe] Yes, so why are only more primitive fossils found in the oldest rock layers, and no mammals? Don't dinosaurs float?

This is an ad hominem argument and therefore will not be given credence in this post.

NO, it's not. It's a factual argument. What it's saying is that there are no mammals in pre-cambrian rock. Why not?

 

[MSizer]

The ultra YEC position is that there was no death before the flood, or at least before Eden. Sin brought death into the world.

OK, adam and eve were teh first two people on earth, so the flood was after Eden. And, their son cain killed their son abel. So death was around within one generation after adam and eve. And, sin was around before the flood, because god sent the flood to rid the world of sin, so none of that adds up.

 

[Autodidact]

I meant to say if.

And, in turn, if not...?

Because, you know, paleontologists have been digging for a long time, and they've never found such a thing yet. Each and every fossil ever found, millions of them, is always in exactly the layer of rock that ToE predicts, never out of order, not once. Isn't that amazing? We have a word for that. We call it "evidence."

 

[Autodidact]

OK, adam and eve were teh first two people on earth, so the flood was after Eden. And, their son cain killed their son abel. So death was around within one generation after adam and eve. And, sin was around before the flood, because god sent the flood to rid the world of sin, so none of that adds up.

Right. For them, there is death and sin between Eden and the flood. I think it's 2000 creationist years, or 1/3 the span of life on earth. So the question remains unanswered: why no pre-cambrian mammal fossils?

 

[Man of Faith]

This is cool - I finally have stumped the creationists and they even recognize it themselves this time! I should be allowed to frubal myself for this. 8^)

Only one creationists has participated as far as I can tell and I am no scientist or geologist. Also just because something can't be explained doesn't nullify the position. Evolutionists don't have the DNA traced all the way back from human to every supposed ancestor, or every transicional fossil from man back to whatever either, yet they still accept that it happened.

 

[MSizer]

Only one creationists has participated as far as I can tell and I am no scientist or geologist.

Right, well, I won't hold my breath for a better explanation.

Also just because something can't be explained doesn't nullify the position. Evolutionists don't have the DNA traced all the way back from human to every supposed ancestor, or every transicional fossil from man back to whatever either, yet they still accept that it happened.

True, but there are many intertwining independent events which point to the ToE. Creation (pseudo-)science is a makeshift slap-dab of unverifiable claims which don't qualify as a theory.

 

[Autodidact]

Only one creationists has participated as far as I can tell and I am no scientist or geologist. Also just because something can't be explained doesn't nullify the position.

Well it sure doesn't help.

Evolutionists don't have the DNA traced all the way back from human to every supposed ancestor, or every transicional fossil from man back to whatever either, yet they still accept that it happened.

Because all the evidence is consistent with it, including the fossil evidence. When the fossil evidence (or any evidence) is inconsistent with your hypothesis, it means your hypothesis is wrong.

The evidence, aka reality, is consistent with ToE and inconsistent with HoK. That's why science accepts ToE and rejects HoK. In relying on the latter, rather than the former, you are rejecting science.

Why would you want to reject science and go back to living in the dark ages?

 

[MSizer]

Why would you want to reject science and go back to living in the dark ages?

I'm afraid of the dark. There are monsters there. Including demons.

 

[Autodidact]

Only one creationists has participated as far as I can tell and I am no scientist or geologist. Also just because something can't be explained doesn't nullify the position. Evolutionists don't have the DNA traced all the way back from human to every supposed ancestor, or every transicional fossil from man back to whatever either, yet they still accept that it happened.

Furthermore, this isn't the only evidence that undermines HoK, it all does. The fossil evidence, the radiometric dating, and more.

Speaking of fossils, according to your hypothesis, shouldn't we find fossils of a prehistoric proto-panda in the ancient middle-east? And a proto-kangaroo? And a proto-penguin? And a proto-sloth? And a proto-possum? Shouldn't we find fossils of marsupials in the middle-east, and spread in path from there to Australia? Is that what the fossils show?

 

[Jose Fly]

Last night, I stayed up to watch the Discovery Institute's film "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Fossil Record" on the TBN Christian channel.

I had heard about the film mainly via the controversy over the ID creationists once again being dishonest in how they conned bone fide scientists into granting interviews for the film (in this case, the two that got duped were Simon Conway Morris and James Valentine). So I was rather curious to see the film, the good thing in this case being that I didn't have to pay for it.

It was pretty much what I expected. It's obviously intended for laypeople and it's obvious the ID creationists are counting on both a level of ignorance and a willingness to believe whatever is stated from their target audience. But even then, the film at times was rather strange. They spent some time going over the history of life on earth known via the fossil record, from the first signs of life 3.8 billion years ago up to the Cambrian. This summary included descriptions of how the first life was simple single-celled bacteria, followed by billions of years of mats of bacteria (stromalites), followed by pre-Cambrian "blobs" of multi-cellular organisms, followed by the Cambrian fauna. At that point in the film, I'm thinking two things to myself. First, that doesn't exactly look like Genesis, does it? Second, isn't that pretty much exactly what we would expect under evolutionary common descent? But what was strange, was that throughout the rest of the film, the ID creationists kept referring to the Cambrian as "the beginning", "the starting point", and otherwise speaking of it as if it were when all life started.

IOW, they spent a bit of time describing pre-Cambrian fauna, but the rest of the film they acted as if it didn't exist! Are creationist audiences that gullible and....well...frankly stupid?

There were some other blatantly dishonest moments, e.g. a graph showing that under "Darwinism", as we move forward in time new phyla should keep popping up every year, and their constantly shifting usage of the term "Darwinism", but again that's par for the course in creationism. And naturally, the latter part of the film was all about "intelligence" being a better explanation for the Cambrian than evolution. Of course, not once did they bother stating exactly what this better explanation was, but the obvious unspoken message one gets from the film is "Goddidit".

 

[MSizer]

Yeah, similarly my wife and I recently downloaded some podcasts from CBC radio about darwin. In one of them, they were talking about the creationist movement in alberta. Some guy out there kept saying "we think it's important that the children are exposed to another viewpoint. They learn best that way". My foot! He wants creationism taught. If only creationism were taught, he would not say anything about "multiple views". I'd love for the gov't of alberta to say "ok, fine, then we'll teach evolution and native american creation stories". I doubt he'd be happy with that "alternative view". They're such manipulative liars.

 

[Gunfingers]

Learning opposing viewpoints is actually very important. when there are opposing viewpoints. In my high school biology class we learned about abiogenesis and panspermia, because neither has enough support to be accepted as THE theory for the origin of life. The same is not true of Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Theory. There is no other answer to the origin of species besides Evolutionary Theory. Nothing else makes sense.

 

[fantome profane]

For anyone who is interested.

Problems With "Flood" Geology

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, similarly my wife and I recently downloaded some podcasts from CBC radio about darwin. In one of them, they were talking about the creationist movement in alberta. Some guy out there kept saying "we think it's important that the children are exposed to another viewpoint. They learn best that way".

To expose the lie behind that, all you have to do is respond: "Oh, so I imagine you take the 'expose the kids to other viewpoints' approach in your church, right?"