Also, the Cambrian is characterized by many major phyla showing up SUDDENLY in the fossil record, already fully formed and functioning, no indication of numerous transitional forms with minor grades of change between them.
Just what we would expect from creation. Critters showing up suddenly and being completely formed.
Creationists, (who do not believe that finding something in one place and time means that it cannot have also existed in another), are hardly inconvenienced over it. Amused, more like
Being amused and understanding something , are two different ends of the pencil RL. Chordates have always been a mystery in that the most primitive forms have LARVAE that evidence chardate structure, and adults that look more like sea slugs or sea squirts.
This agrees with , developmental biology, stratigraphy, and taxonomy. Creationist thinking is merely a mishmash of unconnected bumper stickers with no point of reference or direction.
I find your attempts at miscasting science charmingly naive. Sort of like an aboriginal legend of how the world was populated by critters.
Creationist who have no trouble in dismissing the non-occurence of a fossil in a place or stratigraphic layer are merely evidencing monumental ignorance of how earth and evolutionary processes work. You see, its a foundational piece of evidence that we use to predict where other fossils of the same type can be found . Can Creatioists claim the same rates of success? (Assuming they even do investigative work?)
rlQuote:Creationists, (who do not believe that finding something in one place and time means that it cannot have also existed in another), are hardly inconvenienced over it. Amused, more like
Being amused and understanding something , are two different ends of the pencil RL. Chordates have always been a mystery in that the most primitive forms have LARVAE that evidence chardate structure, and adults that look more like sea slugs or sea squirts.
This agrees with , developmental biology, stratigraphy, and taxonomy. Creationist thinking is merely a mishmash of unconnected bumper stickers with no point of reference or direction.
I find your attempts at miscasting science charmingly naive. Sort of like an aboriginal legend of how the world was populated by critters.
Creationist who have no trouble in dismissing the non-occurence of a fossil in a place or stratigraphic layer are merely evidencing monumental ignorance of how earth and evolutionary processes work. You see, its a foundational piece of evidence that we use to predict where other fossils of the same type can be found . Can Creatioists claim the same rates of success? (Assuming they even do investigative work?)
Being amused and understanding something , are two different ends of the pencil RL. Chordates have always been a mystery in that the most primitive forms have LARVAE that evidence chardate structure, and adults that look more like sea slugs or sea squirts.
This agrees with , developmental biology, stratigraphy, and taxonomy. Creationist thinking is merely a mishmash of unconnected bumper stickers with no point of reference or direction.
I find your attempts at miscasting science charmingly naive. Sort of like an aboriginal legend of how the world was populated by critters.
Creationist who have no trouble in dismissing the non-occurence of a fossil in a place or stratigraphic layer are merely evidencing monumental ignorance of how earth and evolutionary processes work. You see, its a foundational piece of evidence that we use to predict where other fossils of the same type can be found . Can Creatioists claim the same rates of success? (Assuming they even do investigative work?)
