End of Year

Are there simple life-forms? (Part 2)

Q: My Biology textbook says the first simple life-forms were single-celled ones in the Cambrian layers? What is that all about?

A: Well, let’s see—just from that sentence, I would say (1) there are no “simple life-forms”; (2) there is no such thing as a “Cambrian” layer; and (3) nearly all types of life are found in all the layers of the earth. (This would be expected from Noah’s Flood. See Seminar Part 6.) Today, I continue the blog series by looking at my second proposition: There is no such thing as a “Cambrian” layer.

The Geologic Column

The “geologic column” does not exist as portrayed in textbooks. Although index fossils have been found in the supposed order in twenty-six places (way less than 1% of the earth), no actual single example of the entire standard geological column exists in nature. Circular Reasoning Alert! Rocks are dated by the fossils they contain and fossils are dated by the rock layers they are found in! This is circular reasoning.

Trilobites

Next, consider the index fossils used to date the layers. Trilobites are often said to identify layers as being so many millions of years old. However, see what evolutionists themselves say about these “simple” creatures. Trilobite eyes have “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.1 “The eyes of early trilobites have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity”.2

Petrified Trees

As I’ve discussed in my Seminar Part 4 (“Lies in the Textbooks”), petrified trees standing up often run through many layers of rock that have been dated as millions of years different in ages. Wouldn’t the trees rot while waiting to be buried?

Further Study

There are lots of pictures of this in my book, Help! I’m Being Taught Evolution In My Earth Science Class and on Seminar Part 4. All my 6,000+ PowerPoint slides can be purchased and downloaded right here on our Web site.

  1. Lisa Shawver, Science News (February 1974):72)
  2. Stephen J. Gould, Natural History (February 1984): 23)

,

Leave13 Responses to testAre there simple life-forms? (Part 2)

  1. andrew Ryan April 28, 2011 at 7:11 am #

    Kent, in the comments section of part 1 of this blog, Geno already refuted every point you make in your first paragraph. Given this, I can’t really trust anything you say after that.

    “first simple life-forms were single-celled ones in the Cambrian layers”

    Can you give an exact quote from a text book on this please? I’ve been looking up the Cambrian Layer, and don’t find anyone claiming that it is where one finds the simplest life-forms. For a start, we have the pre-Cambrian era. Therefore, mentioning that trilobites were not simple creatures is a complete non sequitur, as no-one ever claimed they were.

  2. Jay Liverstitch April 28, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    I barely have the energy anymore to fully respond to all this nonsense. You guys are so exhausting. So, briefly:

    The Geologic Column

    Please spend 5 minutes researching plate tectonics. Also, please show where any qualified geologist of recent history has ever claimed that based on what we know of the earth, that we should find all strata in exactly the order of their ages. In point of fact, finding that strata did always occur in order of age, would rather effectively falsify pretty much everything we know of the geological processes you spend your time trying to refute; that is, finding what you’re asking for, would debunk your own conclusions.

    Trilobites

    Yes, trilobites had complex eye lenses. I’m unclear as to what you think this demonstrates. Trilobites are a rather recent organism; 3.5 billion years worth of life predate them. No-one of reputation, as far as I’m aware, has ever claimed that trilobites would constitute any form of “simple” life; simpler than orangutans, yes, but not simple by any grand comparison of all modern life, and certainly by no comparison of early, ancient life. A teacher of high school science/biology should know this.

    Petrified Trees

    Polystrate fossils occur in instances of rapid sediment deposition like volcanic eruptions, not through the usual, very slow, process of erosion and deposition that spans millions of years and accounts for most strata. Your point of course, is that these strata were not deposited on millions of years, a point that is completely uncontroversial and not disputed by any reputable geologist. The occasional rapid deposition of layers does nothing to disprove that most layers form over the course of millions of years.

    Jay

  3. John Bebbington April 28, 2011 at 3:30 pm #

    no actual single example of the entire standard geological column exists in nature.

    Kent should address the article at talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolum instead of just swallowing creationist apologetics but, of course, he won’t as it destroys his entire religious philosophy. It’s good to bury your head in the sandstone.

    Circular Reasoning Alert! Rocks are dated by the fossils they contain and fossils are dated by the rock layers they are found in! This is circular reasoning.

    Igneous rocks are dated by radiometric methods. The fossils which lie in sedimentary layers between the igneous layers are dated by reference to the igneous layers.

    Fossils cannot be dated directly.

    However, once fossils have been dated by the above method they can then be used as index fossils to date the rock layers in which they are found.

    It is a very simple principal. Why does Kent have such difficulty understanding it?

  4. Carl M April 28, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    : the first simple life-forms were single-celled ones in the Cambrian layers?

    Wrong. The first lifeforms are in pre-Cambrian layers

    Although index fossils have been found in the supposed order in twenty-six places (way less than 1% of the earth), no actual single example of the entire standard geological column exists in nature.

    This is referring to the YEC John Woodmorappes strange claim that a “complete” column must be 200 miles thick (his assertion) therefore anything not that thick – even if containing all geologic time periods – is invalid.

    I also don’t believe Hovind’s assertion regarding the use of full sequences of index fossils is correct, but that is neither here nor there.

    <Rocks are dated by the fossils they contain and fossils are dated by the rock layers they are found in! This is circular reasoning.

    Wrong. Sedimentary rocks are relatively dated by the fossils they may contain (eg Cambrian). Fossils are absolutely dated by the use of radiometric dating on surrounding geology (if available). Note, one form of dating gives a basic period while the other gives a specific age.

    Trilobites

    However, see what evolutionists themselves say about these “simple” creatures.

    Notice the bait and switch? The original question was about single-celled lifeforms (properly assigned to the pre-Cambrian) then Hovind switches to multi-celled from the actual Cambrian. A classic case of apples and oranges.

    “The eyes of early trilobites have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity”.

    What is it with Creationists and quote mining?

    “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods.

    Google: “The Ediacaran Experiment”

    petrified trees standing up often run through many layers of rock that have been dated as millions of years different in ages.

    For the sake of brevity, I will call this an outright lie.

  5. Carl M April 28, 2011 at 9:02 pm #

    Erratum

    Rocks are dated by the fossils they contain and fossils are dated by the rock layers they are found in! This is circular reasoning.

    ————————————

    Curse htmls tags!

    Hey CSE – any chance of a preview or edit function being added to the blog?

  6. Jason Petersen April 29, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

    Andrew Ryan:

    “Kent, in the comments section of part 1 of this blog, Geno already refuted every point you make in your first paragraph. Given this, I can’t really trust anything you say after that.”

    You must be using the term “refuted” very loosely in this statement. :\

  7. andrew Ryan May 2, 2011 at 7:25 am #

    Jason: “You must be using the term “refuted” very loosely in this statement”

    So, no answer to Geno’s points? I’ll stick by my statement.

  8. Billy Joe Grace May 2, 2011 at 7:28 am #

    “Also, please show where any qualified geologist”
    qualified by whom? The unbiased evolutionist universities?

    “Trilobites are a rather recent organism; 3.5 billion years worth of life predate them”.
    were you there?

    “not through the usual, very slow, process of erosion and deposition that spans millions of years and accounts for most strata”
    prove it.

    How can erosion account for strata anyway? Why is it that no matter where in the world a road has been cut through a hill, ridge, or mountain, there is always layer upon layer of visible strata? Sometimes vertical, sometimes horizontal, sometimes bent in a horse shoe shape, sometimes at a 45degree angle, etc…And there is always soil on the top. How is it that the soil is eroding from the top of the hill or mountain, yet the hill or mountain contains it’s own layers? The layers in the hill continue on into the valley. Where is this erosion taking place, in the sky?
    There is no doubt that erosion happens, but to suggest that all layers are formed by erosion is nonsense. I have never observed erosion to form layers of strata. I have however observed erosion to reveal already existing layers. Floods produce strata. Erosion does not.
    Yeah, yeah I’m chasin a rabbit, but if the evolutionist would just acknowledge his assumptions, he would be a lot better off. None of his “evidence” reveals the origins of life or our world.
    Maybe we could get Dawkins, Santa, and Peter rabbit to plead with E.T. to please reveal itself to us.

  9. John Bebbington May 2, 2011 at 10:31 am #

    Billy Joe wrote:

    “Also, please show where any qualified geologist”

    qualified by whom? The unbiased evolutionist universities?

    Geology has nothing to do with biological evolution. Back in the 18th & 19th centuries geology was originally a study of YECists. It was their gradual realisation that the bible could not account for their findings that caused them to reject a literalist reading of Genesis.

    How can erosion account for strata anyway? Why is it that no matter where in the world a road has been cut through a hill, ridge, or mountain, there is always layer upon layer of visible strata? Sometimes vertical, sometimes horizontal, sometimes bent in a horse shoe shape, sometimes at a 45degree angle, etc…And there is always soil on the top. How is it that the soil is eroding from the top of the hill or mountain, yet the hill or mountain contains it’s own layers? The layers in the hill continue on into the valley. Where is this erosion taking place, in the sky?

    There’s not much topsoil accumulating when the land is covered in ice during one of the very frequent ice ages which have occurred down the ages. It is at such times when severe erosion occurs.

    Also, there are many instances of strata made of ancient topsoils (known as “paleosoils”.

    There is no doubt that erosion happens, but to suggest that all layers are formed by erosion is nonsense. I have never observed erosion to form layers of strata. I have however observed erosion to reveal already existing layers. Floods produce strata. Erosion does not.

    Who said it does? Jay wrote of “erosion and deposition“. You can’t have deposition unless the material which is being deposited comes from somewhere else. If it is not an igneous rock or a biological stratum such as a coal layer or chalk or then the material has to come from some eroding layer elesewhere.

    Yeah, yeah I’m chasin a rabbit, but if the evolutionist would just acknowledge his assumptions, he would be a lot better off.

    What assumptions? Please would you make a short list for us.

    None of his “evidence” reveals the origins of life or our world.

    No-one said it does.

  10. andrew Ryan May 2, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    Billy Joe Grace: [re: "Trilobites are a rather recent organism; 3.5 billion years worth of life predate them] were you there?”

    Billy, what is in contention on this particular blog is what the text books’ claims actually are – not how one backs up those particular claims (which we are happy to do too).

    If Kent is saying that the text books claim Trilobites are simple organisms, or that they were among the earliest, then he is simply incorrect – the text books make no such claims. Feel free to argue against what they DO claim, but don’t strawman their contents in order to argue against things they do not say.

  11. Billy Joe Grace May 4, 2011 at 5:28 am #

    ”Geology has nothing to do with biological evolution.”

    I agree. But the religious dogma spewed forth by the Darwinites is a claim to know the origins of the universe and everything in it.

    “It was their gradual realisation that the bible could not account for their findings that caused them to reject a literalist reading of Genesis.”

    There’s an assumption for you. Your bias leads you to conclude that their “findings” are scientific simply because their interpretation of what is being observed differs from what scripture would say.

    Another assumption would be that a layer of strata “represents” any time period at all. Several layers can be deposited at once.

    Claiming life came from some “darwinian” process is an assumption.

    Claiming a non-historical age of the earth. Is an assumption.

    Neither of us were there, but I do have a historical document to draw conclusions from. You have regurgitated nonsense from the school of Godhate. All “leading” proponents of evolution don’t just claim that their is no God. They hate Him with a passion. No one in there right mind bothers insulting a non-existent entity.

    Life began spontaneously is perhaps the grandest of the evolutionary assumptions.

    You being right is an assumption.

    “No-one said it does.”

    Oh yeah you have.

    “Billy, what is in contention on this particular blog is what the text books” claims actually are not how one backs up those particular claims (which we are happy to do too).”

    What is in contention in the context of this entire website is that one side claims to know Him, and the other side says that He isn’t there. How you back up your claims, or how the textbook represents it comes from a preconceived darwinian mindset.
    You must not be hoppin to hi, because you have yet to prove anything to anyone.

    BTW. If you are so smart why are you arguing with idiots?

  12. andrew Ryan May 4, 2011 at 9:29 am #

    Billy: “the religious dogma spewed forth by the Darwinites is a claim to know the origins of the universe and everything in it”

    There is much wrong with such a short sentence, but I’ll restrict my response to two points:
    1. Evolution concerns itself only with explaining the diversity of life on this planet. It is nothing to do with geology, it is nothing to do with the origins of the universe.
    2. Dogma is by definition unchanging, whereas science accommodates new information all the time.

    “What is in contention in the context of this entire website is that one side claims to know Him, and the other side says that He isn’t there.”

    Nonsense. There are many Christians posting here who accept evolution, so it’s simply incorrect to paint this as being about theism vs atheism. My point stands: the contention on this thread is what the science books say. Kent is claiming they say something that they do not, in order to create an strawman to burn. This is a logical fallacy.

    “All “leading” proponents of evolution don’t just claim that their is no God.”

    More nonsense Billy. Francis Collins and Ken Miller are both leading proponents of evolution – among the most famous in fact – and both are Christians. In fact the former describes himself as a deeply religious serious Christian.

  13. John Bebbington May 4, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    Billy Joe Grace wrote:

    Geology has nothing to do with biological evolution.

    I agree. But the religious dogma spewed forth by the Darwinites is a claim to know the origins of the universe and everything in it.

    I thought that it was the Christianites who thought that. But if that is the claim, Billy, I’m no Darwinite.

    “It was their gradual realisation that the bible could not account for their findings that caused them to reject a literalist reading of Genesis.
    There’s an assumption for you. Your bias leads you to conclude that their “findings are scientific simply because their interpretation of what is being observed differs from what scripture would say.

    My bias? It was the creationists who went out to discover these things, not me.

    Another assumption would be that a layer of strata “represents” any time period at all. Several layers can be deposited at once.

    What, coal layers overlain by a sandstone overlain by a paleosol overlain by a sandstone overlain by more coal layers overlain by yet more sandstone all overlain by chalk, and all laid down at the same time? I never knew that.

    Claiming life came from some “darwinian” process is an assumption.

    What assumption? That life came from some “darwinian” process, perhaps?

    Claiming a non-historical age of the earth. Is an assumption.

    No, it’s not. The claim is made because of the evidence and not because of an assumption. If there is an assumption it is that God is not a deceiver.

    Neither of us were there, but I do have a historical document to draw conclusions from.

    I don’t know of any respectable modern biblical scholars who claim that Genesis is an historical document.

    Life began spontaneously is perhaps the grandest of the evolutionary assumptions.

    I’ll give you that one.

    You being right is an assumption.

    No, that’s a presumption.

    What is in contention in the context of this entire website is that one side claims to know Him, and the other side says that He isn’t there.

    I don’t remember anyone claiming the latter.

    If you are so smart why are you arguing with idiots?.

    Obviously, I’m not so smart. I hadn’t even realised you were an idiot till you told me.