With so many facts disputing the naturalistic theory I’ve decided to lay out the biggest ones individually. As this is presented to public school students as a fact Im going to use the higher scientific standards of evidence which is used in the applied sciences where evidence has to be 100% accurate. I may also use the standard of evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” as required by criminal law. Not the “balance of probability” which is used in civil law. That means anything speculative will be deemed unacceptable.
A false representation of an evolutionary tree that would be typically presented as factual to young school kids.
Part 1. The Cambrian explosion. Darwin’s Doubt.
The Cambrian explosion of life has long been a major hurdle for the naturalistic theory. The fossil record shows the first three quarters of the earth’s history to have nothing but very simply structured organisms. Then all of the sudden, 542 million years ago, vast quantities of complex creatures emerged without any of the evolutionary precursors demanded from Darwin’s theory.
In fact Darwin himself was perplexed by this event and in his book stated; “It’s as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history”. He concluded that the fossil record was incomplete and said “To the question of why we do not find rich fossil deposits belonging to these…periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer”. This fact caused great doubt in Darwin’s mind. He proposed that the fossil evidence was yet to be found and that without it his theory would collapse.
Since publishing his book, “The origin of species”, there have been new discoveries. Advanced life forms from the Cambrian era were discovered all around the world. However the findings only served to refute Darwin’s theory as there was no evolutionary species found for the Cambrian animals.
It is clear that the fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory of a common ancestor but in fact it undoubtedly refutes it. Yet the Cambrian explosion is not even mentioned in many text books and when it is mentioned it is not presented as evidence against Darwin’s theory but instead as an event that requires no further justification.
Similar situations also occur throughout time including the period after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This is where many modern animals, including primates, appear without any evolutionary evidence.
From observing the fossil data of the pre Cambrian period we should find evidence of evolution and a common ancestor as predicted by Darwin. We find no such evidence therefore, as Darwin himself knew, the theory is falsified. It also fails both criminal and civil legal standards of evidence.
The image shows Darwins prediction compared to the actual fossil data
Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.
Edited by Porkncheese, : Change title due to popular demand
I tried to call ToE something else as not to provoke irrational conclusions about my beliefs and motives which instantly renders ToE false in my eyes. I didn't want to do a part on religion but i will have to because its obviously a huge part of this theory.
The first illustration is very similar to the ones iv seen being shown to primary school kids. If u don't agree then show me what is used.
Are we allowed to copy and paste large sections of text like RAZD has? I was never allowed so I'm not addressing it.
No one is able to show any pre cambrian evolution. So dust off ur hands and move on.
So quit trying to act like i invented all this and try convince me of ToE.
Applied science, u seriously want an explination. It's really just a ploy to deflect the focus from the topic. Google it if u don't know it. Do u ask for a verbal explination every time u hear a new term. Absurd LoL. "Mummy what does this mean?"..."Look it up son" Hahahaha
So far only defensive tactics and false accusations to avoid explaining the evidence of the missing fossils. Im not being drawn into it. I just record these types of arguments as i will tally them up at the end of it all to reflect the attitude and response to ToE being questioned.
I've stated my position and belief in the past so be my guest, repeat your mistakes from a year ago. That should really help the strength of your explination
I've given my references. They are scientists. Perhaps start there if you've never heard anyone express this skepticism. (doubtful)
And to people that are incapable of using internet this is the definition of naturalism. "Naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" I couldn't imagine stopping to ask someone a definition when its so easily obtained. Obviously a defensive tactic.