[metmom]

It would clearly depend on the presumptions that you’re starting with.

From the worldview of the scientist and what has been decided about how the earth was formed,etc, their explanation does fit their paradigm. But that depends on whether the scenarios put forth by scientists are correct.

For the others, since fossilization is currently not well understood, from everything I’ve read, it gets back to the adage of, in the field, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Since not everything was fossilized, there’s simply no way to determine what may have existed that wasn’t.

FWIW, lack of an explanation does not invalidate the other views. Sometimes lack of information can be the cause. I’m not going to be writing them off because of an anomaly.

There is plenty of other issues with the ToE that weaken it, though.

Like I said, they all have their strong and weak points and none are a completely satisfactory explanation. Evolution presumes too much without good reason. The level of order and complexity and information defies probability for it to be unguided.

Did you ever read Schroeder’s work on the age of the universe?

[Ira_Louvin]

Your argument about the unguided probability fails because over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.

Also good job at avoiding the question, lots of words but no answer,so lets try this different way and this time give straight answer.

So how do you explain the fact that we never find any trilobites above the Permian strata, and why we never find dinosaurs above the cretaceous strata?