How can there be life, much less a Cambrian explosion, if the early Earth was an ice ball. Astrophysics tells us the Earth should be an ice ball, but why isn’t it? Astrophysics tells us that relative to today, the sun radiated 30% less energy in the time of the Early earth and 6% less energy in the late Cambrian (about 500 million years ago). But even as little as 2% less solar energy hitting the Earth could have turned the Earth into an ice ball.
Simple energy-balance climate models of the Budyko/Sellers type predict that a small (2–5%) decrease in solar output could result in a runaway glaciation on the Earth.
If the Earth was an ice ball at one time, it should have stayed one because an ice ball earth would reflect solar energy back into space. Astrophysics poses a serious problem for the Darwinist narrative that life evolved over millions of years from a warm little pond (the pond was probably a frozen!). If the Earth was an ice ball in the late Cambrian (around 500 million years ago), then what happened to all those fish?
[Note: the “Cocktail” designation in the title refers to ideas that are possibly true, but are speculative in nature and which are not offered with the same level of conviction as other arguments at UD.]
From Wiki we read:
The faint young Sun paradox or problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in the Earth’s history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun’s output would be only 70% as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch. The issue was raised by astronomers Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972.
Early in the Earth’s history, the Sun’s output would have been only 70% as intense as it is during the modern epoch. In the then current environmental conditions, this solar output would have been insufficient to maintain a liquid ocean. Astronomers Carl Sagan and George Mullen pointed out in 1972 that this is contrary to the geological and paleontological evidence.
Say what? Geological and paleontological “evidence” (shaky speculations) are contrary to astrophysical evidence, not the other way around! I’d wager on physicists being right about science than a Darwinist paleontologist.
And in 2011, the prestigious scientific journal reports that the Faint young Sun paradox remains
The Sun was fainter when the Earth was young, but the climate was generally at least as warm as today; this is known as the ‘faint young Sun paradox’. Rosing et al.1 claim that the paradox can be resolved by making the early Earth’s clouds and surface less reflective. We show that, even with the strongest plausible assumptions, reducing cloud and surface albedos falls short by a factor of two of resolving the paradox. A temperate Archean climate cannot be reconciled with the low level of CO2 suggested by Rosing et al.1; a stronger greenhouse effect is needed.
But the one solution that won’t be accepted is the possibility the Darwinists geological timescales are false. See: Cocktail: C14, DNA, collagen in dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false and Cocktail: falsifying Darwinism via falsifying the geological “column”. One does not have to be a YEC to be skeptical of the mainstream. Even non-creationists like Richard Milton are skeptical of the accepted mainstream geological timescales.
Myself, I don’t know, save to say, there seems less and less reason to wager that Darwinism is correct. I was once upon a time a Darwinist, then an Old Earth creationist, but then in light of the physical evidence, I could no longer accept mainstream geological timescales. The universe and Earth could be old, but it doesn’t mean the geological timescales are correct. In the scheme of things, whether YEC is true or false, it suffices for many to know there is an Intelligent Designer…
I’ve been more critical of YEC ideas at UD than probably anyone else at UD. Maybe I’ve gotten away with it because I self identify as a YEC(a seriously Doubting-Thomas YEC), but even if YEC is false, that doesn’t imply that accepted paleontological timescales, on which the Darwinist narrative is founded, are correct. They evidently aren’t.
I pointed out here that Darwinist supported paleontology contends with established chemical kinetics. With the release of the recent paper in Nature, Darwinism must continue to contend with established astrophysics.