The Cambrian again?

Susan B (susan-brassfield@ou.edu)
Tue, 30 Nov 1999 20:14:45 -0600 (CST)

At 03:54 PM 11/29/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Susan Brassfield wrote:
>
>>In Darwin's day it was thought that the earth was millions of years old. It
>>was a weakness in Darwin's theory because that was not enough time for
>>evolution to have happened. Almost a half-century after he died
>>cosmologists and physicists discovered that the earth and the universe were
>>*billions* of years old. They changed everyone's mind about the short
>>life-span of the earth, but not by saying "well, we feel it's lots older,
>>that's our opinion and we're entitled to our opinion." They did it by
>>presenting convincing evidence.

Cliff Lundberg:
>Like the evidence that shows that the formation of all the major metazoan
>phyla took place within 5 million years?
>
>Maybe you need to put that argument away; it doesn't work anymore.

I was talking about cosmology and the scientific principle of collecting
evidence. What the heck are *you* talking about? The Cambrian again? Do you
realize that 5 million years is *500 TIMES* the length of time our own
species has been on the earth? It's not exactly a snap of the fingers. Also
you seem to be ignoring the fact that there are plenty of pre-Cambrian
fossils. You also seem to think that the rapid origin of *phyla* is
significant. Why? So what? What about all the classes, orders and families
that have evolved since that time? What about the fact that almost none of
the animals and plants living then still exist?

Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb