>>>http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/quotes/cambrian.html
>CL:
>>The emphasis on Behe and ID on the other pages seems pretty
>>creationistic. But the quotes are good.
>
>The quotes are NOT good.
>the pictures and quotes are nearly identical with those found on the
>Access Research Network website which is unabashedly creationist.
This is not scientific criticism. The quotes are not from creationists,
but from eminent evolutionists. Nor are the quotes unfairly cropped.
Darwin saw the problem; but now, with the evidence in much sharper
focus, Darwinists can't see any problem.
>the point of the pictures and quotes is to make it seem--to someone who
>doesn't know much about earth's history--as if the Cambrian was the
>creation event.
The problem will not be solved by directing accusations of creationism
at anyone who mentions the problem. I'm sorry, but the Cambrian
explosion of phyla was a real event. Is it not obvious that the prior
faunas could not have thrived if gnathostomes were about?
>"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest
>Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably
>far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day;
>and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world
>swarmed with living creatures. "
>
>He was, of course, correct. The tree has roots.
All Earthly life has roots, all the way back to the origin of life. But where
are the particular roots of the Cambrian fauna? The seemingly instantaneous
origin of these forms does not fit the Darwinian model.
Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com