The Cambrian Outburst, comments from Alfred Romer
 

"David Jensen" wrote in message
...
In alt.talk.creationism (sbp removed), (JaBrIoL)
wrote in :

Arne Vogel wrote in message
...
MarcRW wrote:

"JaBrIoL" wrote in message
om...
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period],
there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of
the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these
older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general
picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a
special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times."-Natural
History,
October 1959, p. 467.

You can't come up with a more recent source that supports your point?
Pretty weak!

Marc

The point about Creationism is not coming up with more recent sources,
but with more *ancient* sources! In creationist thinking, it makes
perfect sense to point out that scientists who lived centuries before
Darwin did not believe in evolution.

I am not a creationist, and I have posted recent articles, which has
been conviently ignored..
for example, new scientist article of plant evolution. it basicly
knowcks down all previous theories on plant evolution.

where you criticism on that?

the article is still hot off the press..

Reference please.

http://www.nybg.org/pr/orchid_age.html


the above link, was not what I have in mind.. the article of new scientist
is still on sale.. I will look for the date...

The Cambrian Outburst, comments from Alfred Romer
 

"jabriol" wrote in message
...

I am not a creationist, and I have posted recent articles, which has
been conviently ignored..
for example, new scientist article of plant evolution. it basicly
knowcks down all previous theories on plant evolution.

where you criticism on that?

the article is still hot off the press..

Reference please.

http://www.nybg.org/pr/orchid_age.html


the above link, was not what I have in mind.. the article of new scientist
is still on sale.. I will look for the date...

Why the refernce, then? I looked, and all it says is that they've made some
discoveries using DNA that correct and extend our understanding of the age,
evolution, and distribution of orchids. It hardly "knocks down all previous
theories on plant evolution".

Marc