cambrian death cause

quote:

---

Could something, say a low radiation dose, or such cause the quickened death of some creatures, yet be of little enough effect on 'higher life'?

---

Unless the surviving creatures surrounded themselves in a heavy metal, no. In fact, bacteria would seem to be the ones best able to survive the effects of radiation given there sheer numbers and ability to quickly adapt through mutation. In fact, there is a strain of bacteria that can live on X-Ray equipment in hospitals. This bug has the best DNA repair mechanisms known in nature. If anything the "higher lifeforms" would be the first to go.

quote:

---

Where would such a deadly effect come from?

---

The Invisible Flatulent Pink Unicorn (henceforth IFPU) looked down on the world that she had made with a swoosh of her tail and was disappointed with some of the animals and plants she had made. Trilobites were ugly in Her eyes, so she struck them down with a stomp of her foot. Spiny worms were equally disgusting, they got the hoof as well. She started destroying the reptiles, starting with the biggest, until a man came to her. He said "Oh Great Unicorn, spare the reptiles so that I might make great cowboy boots out of their hide." And so the IFPU saved the rest of the reptiles. This is why we have alligator suitcases and rattlesnake cowboy boots today, because of the IFPU.Guess what, my story has as much evidence as your story. Therefore I am claiming that if the creation story and explanation you describe should be taught in science high school classes, so should mine. After all, with respect to evidenciary support they are equal.

quote:

---

To get a good answer there, it seems we need some information on the conditions that were present in a world before the flood.

---

There is no evidence supporting a world wide flood. Therefore, there is no such thing as "conditions before the flood".

quote:

---

Why, I sometimes wondered, did God need Eden as a place to live for Adam and Eve?

---

There is no scientific evidence for the Garden of Eden even existing.

quote:

---

Was most of the world a sort of swamp full of cambrian type thingies? We really don't know!

---

We have a pretty good idea. We arrived at this information through the fossil record. Again, it is evidence that lead science to the conclusion. You seem to be skipping that part.

quote:

---

Apparently many feel there was no rain, but a watering or kind of daily dew, or mist.

---

And they "feel" this way because of their religious convictions, not evidence found in nature.

quote:

---

What if most or all of the men, mammals, birds, and dinos were in or near Eden at this early period? That alone would explain a lot!

---

What if they were all on an intergalactic spaceship? This explanation is about as usefull as yours and supported by the same amount of evidence, that is no evidence whatsoever.

quote:

---

Why didn't men die in this period?

---

Because there were no men, or women, until about 100,000 years ago. The Cambrian occured millions of years ago.

quote:

---

Still, in men's case, they lived on to close to a thousand years even after that, in such a near perfect world.

---

Again, evidence of this please.

quote:

---

I wouldn't be at all surprised that the reason so many creatures got so big, was they also lived greater lifespans than today. So they had time to grow big! (8 foot beavers, 1 foot dragonflys, huge dinos, etc)

---

It takes more than just a long life span to grow bigger. There are also morphological changes that have to occur to cope with many aspects of being "big". If there were an 8 foot beaver it probably wouldn't be able to move with the way it's body is set up, much less swim. Humans, for example, encounter serious health effects when they go past 7 feet tall. Sorry, wild conjecture just isn't working for you. You need to start with actual evidence and then move towards a conclusion.

quote:

---

Hard to discuss creation with a premise like that! Maybe you should switch this to 'evo unproven theories only discussion forum?'

---

It's hard to judge the validity of a theory when you can just make things up. I swear, if God told Noah to build a spacecraft to avoid a cataclysmic meteor shower you would be looking for a spaceport on Mars.Secondly, no theory in science is ever proven 100%. Don't worry, your lack of experience within the sciences might have led you to believe the creationist propoganda. Theories are tested over and over (as evolution has been) in a continuing effort to show that they are wrong. In science, you can only prove that something is false but never prove that something is true. Unfortunately for you, a global flood has been proven wrong.

quote:

---

So, lets see, you can't detect the spirit world in the slightest, and now you admit science has no clue even of Eden!

---

And christianity is so limited that its practitioners can not reach enlightenment like Buddha. Christianity is so limited it is unable to detect reincarnated ancestors. Christianity is so limited it is unable to find animal spirits to guide their warriors. Please, science only throws out one more god and one more religious creation story than "creation science" does.

quote:

---

Yes, it rains now, so I guess it always must have? Sorry, that just don't do it.

---

Let's think about this for a moment. Throughout the geologic record we see signs of riverbeds that cut into rock. If it doesn't rain, where does that water come from? At somepoint all of it would drain out to the lowest elevation. Once it reaches the lowest elevation there is no physical force other than hot magma to squirt it back up to higher elevations. Yes, it has always rained as long as their was water flowing on Earth. Do you have evidence otherwise? Again, evidence first then conclusion.

quote:

---

The creation record tells us He put men, and the garden here. Population stats, bear this out, taking into consideration death rates, war, etc. , I believe, since the flood, at least.

---

So you have a census for the entire history of the last 4,000 years for every culture and every country? Quite amazing, you might let National Geographic know. Of course, this may be a rehash of the same sh!t that ICR keeps putting out, using current death and birth rates to calculate past population sizes. Using the same calculations we should be miles deep in E. coli since they double in population every 20 minutes.

quote:

---

creation sites tell us we would be up to our ears in human fossils, and I also think, standing room only on planet earth-type of population.

---

That's what you get for listening to creationist sites, misinformation. Let's use an example, the passenger pigeon. At one time in North America they numbered in the billions. In fact, the first european settlers recorded flocks so large they took most of the day to pass overhead. Guess how many passenger pigeon fossils there are today? None. Now take humans, whose population size has always been smaller than passenger pigeons. Why should we expect to find billions of human fossils? I am sorry, but you need to look at science articles and findings that haven't been corrupted by a political and religious agenda.

quote:

---

That men lived 1000 years is so hard to believe, but it seems easy to swallow 100,000, and millions, and billions of years for evos!

---

And that is what I have to take it on, your belief. Again (and again) evidence before conclusion. You claim that people used to live 1,000 years, it is up to you to prove it. Same as the "no rain in the past", that is also up to you to prove, not for me to disprove. It is poor logic to come up with ad hoc explanations and expect people to prove them wrong when you didn't prove they were correct to begin with. What if I claimed that humans only lived 10 years and used to grow faster in the past. There, prove me wrong. Creationists claim that radioisotope decay and the speed of light were different in the past (a much younger earth) so why not a shorter lifespan? Too bad real science isn't done in such a fashion, I could be the most prolific scientist in the world.

quote:

---

OK, so I can get along with some morphing as well as longer lifespans, as well as lots to eat. Something sure sounds like it was different in the pre flood world!

---

Try macroevolution, not morphing. We are talking about changes in morphology within one generation that have never been observed. Again, you propose things that are not observed and expect me and others to swallow it whole on your say so. You have to do better than this.

quote:

---

Interpretation of the evidence, I think we mean here. Your interpretation based on science, or mine.

---

What evidence? Let's break it down:
1. Garden of Eden, no evidence.
2. World wide flood, no evidence.
3. Decay from perfect form, no evidence.
4. Longer life span, no evidence.I could keep going, but this is a good start.

quote:

---

So then, if we got 6 billion people now, in 3000 years or whatever since the flood, then in 100,000 years, even, would we not have many more?

---

And using creationist math, in a million years we should expect living people to be piled on mile deep across the entire globe. What they fail to take into account is the increases in agricultural and medical technologies that doubled the lifespan of humans and reduced the death rate to a fraction of what it used to be. Even the infant mortality rate is substantially less than it was 200 years ago. Population sizes are regulated by access to food, which was strictly limited until very recently.

quote:

---

Then, if your arguement is humans don't get fossized easy, why are some wanting them to be in the cambrian layer?

---

Creationists like yourself claim that the fossil record is complete, that there are not any transitional forms. Creationists also claim that fossilization is quite common, as your claim that there should be billions of fossilized humans in the fossil record shows. Therefore, if fossilization is so easy, as you claim, and the geologic record does not reflect evolutionary sequences then, according to you, we should find humans in the Cambrian layers. It is a flaw in your own logic, and other creationists, that backs them into this corner. One day they claim that fossilization is common and the fossil record was lain down quickly. The next day they claim that the fossil record was sorted by some unknown mechanism and fossilization is rare. So, which is it?

quote:

---

Do you have good scientific reason to assume the birth rate was radically different? Hopefully you are not just giving us 'misinformation', and wild opinion here!

---

Birth rates would have been similar, but death rates and especially infant mortality rates were significantly higher. Also, there were periods of great disease, such as the Black Plague which wiped out 25% of the population in Europe. Creationists take the birth and death rates from todays world, as well as lifespan, and expect these numbers to match up with history. They simply don't. Do you have anything besides "misinformation" or wild opinion to support the idea that today's world with it's agricultural and medical technologies should in anyway apply to the world even 300 years ago?

quote:

---

Then, we need to look at the pre flood world, was there rivers? YES, there was! God even names several that were near Eden! So where did they get water? Did they get any from the fountains of the deep? Was the mist sufficient to feed rivers? Why not?!

---

Do you have evidence that there were fountains of the deep in enough numbers to supply rivers across the globe? Nope. Fantasy and wild opinion again. Why not? Making up ad hoc hypotheses to support an already falsified theory in no way makes your argument better. In fact, it is a sign of weakness if a theory needs ad hoc hypotheses to support it. Again, why not a pre-UFO world, a pre-Fairy world, a pre-Giant Bear world (native american myths)? They have just as much evidence as you have, none. Was mist enough? Does a river form in your front yard because of the morning dew? Those rivers that God named were still in the same places after the flood. They are now fed by rain, and lots of it. This mist would have to so thick that raindrops would have been the consequence given the surface tension of water and its tendency to form larger droplets. Sorry, you are expecting me to ignore physical laws that we observe today. You might as well claim that you can walk on water.

quote:

---

Seems to me though that even Abraham lived about 175 years, so lifespans are much shorter now.

---

If I claimed that Ronald Reagan was 250 years old when he died, would that count as a falsification? There is no evidence that Abraham lived that long, or that anyone lived longer than the lifespans we observe today. If there is evidence, please show it. Otherwise you are making an unsupported assertion, an assertion that can not be taken seriously.

quote:

---

It used to be the norm, to not kill your unborn babies as well! I don't remember any mention of the many famines in the bible wiping out much of mankind.

---

No, the norm used to be infanticide, waiting until the baby was born.

quote:

---

I don't think there should be so many humans at all. The point was, if there were long periods of time, which there wasn't, then, we would expect, by known rates, a great many more people, and even human fossils.

---

Why? How much of the deposited sediments have we checked for human fossils? Maybe 0.0000001%? Also, we have found fossils of humans and also our ape-like ancestors. They are there, of course none of them in the Cambrian sediments. Why is that? Why is it that EVERY human or human ancestor fossil that we find is always found in the youngest sediments? Sorry, your ideas just don't jive with the evidence.

quote:

---

Didnt 26 million people die in ww2 alone?

---

Yes, about 1% of the human population. After WWI about 20 million people died of influenza in one year. However, as far as percentage of world population the Black Plague still remains king. If I remember correctly, the Black Plague killed about 10% of the world population, ten times the percentage of WWII. Sorry, but there is no reason why the recent boom in human population should be extrapolated into the past to calculate past population sizes.

quote:

---

How about the ozone layer, and a thousand chemical, and pollution caused cancer deaths? Mortality rates may be down , but how about birth rates? And do we include the millions of abortions in the mortality figures?

---

Firstly, you have to live a while before you develop cancer in most cases. Cancer before the age of 45 (the average lifespan only 100 years ago) is still much rarer than cancer after 45. Secondly, the advent of antibiotics alone has probably reduced infant mortality by half, not to mention vaccines for small pox and such. Yes, mortality rates in the past were MUCH higher, so much so that they limited population sizes. The birth rate was held under control by poor health care, and whenever people started creating large cities communicable diseases would spread rapidly and kill thousands (not to mention the huge problems with cholera linked to poor sewage disposal). We live in a very different world today, and there is still no reason that todays population growth rates are applicable to past populations.

quote:

---

Very funny. That would assume we get mist now somewhere in proportion to a whole world eco system based on it back then. No comparison.

---

Care to show, with evidence, what the mist WAS like? Just evidence that metereology was different 6,000 years ago would be a start.

quote:

---

The creation explosion it seems to me in this layer better explains the evidence.

---

1. We have pre-cambrian fossils as well. How do those fit into your story?
2. We don't find anything in the cambrian that even resembles living species we see today.
3. We don't find fossils of tree leaves, plant pollen, shed shark teeth, human artifacts, bird eggs, dinosaur eggs, pine needles, bird nests, etc. that would have been left behind by living organisms, whether they went extinct or not. In fact, whether they were immortal or not. Even if every animal/plant in the garden of eden was immortal they should have left "fingerprints" (eg leaves, pollen, nests, dens) that would have been preserved through fossilization. We don't see those things.
4. You have yet to show any evidence that people were alive during the cambrian. Positive evidence would really help you out.Then what was the mist like, please use physical evidence.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-10-2004 11:18 PM

quote:

---

quote:

---

Sorry, but there is no reason why the recent boom in human population should be extrapolated into the past to calculate past population sizes.
  —Loudmouth

---

And visa versa.

---

Are you then saying that previous population growth rates shouldn't be applied to today's? I will agree if this is what you are saying.

quote:

---

If the cambrian was the dying en masse of creation life due to shortened lifespans, then, I can think, off hand, of two possibilities. -That the pre cambrian, because of the way the ecosystem, and climate, maybe mist, etc, was in that lost world, maybe in some locales factors were at play that deposited, or deeper buried (like sinking in certain soil types) some life. This would also explain why there was so very little, in comparison there.

---

It is the "If" at the beginning of the quote that I want you to find positive evidence for. I am not saying that I want proof, since proofs are only found in math. What I want is evidence. What evidence led you to believe that there was a shortening of lifespans during the pre-cambiran and cambrian? Is your evidence solely the Bible? If evolution is false, and evolution is able to find support in the fossil record, you would think that if creationism was correct it would have more supporting evidence in the fossil record. I have yet to hear you mention extra-biblical evidence from the fossil record that supports your interpretation. How about a more realistic interpretation, there wasn't a whole lot of life in the pre-cambrian period. What we see in the fossil record is actually what was going on, very little variety in species diversity.

quote:

---

The horrible price sin's ravages, not only on man, but on all creation! But, cheer up, because I can tell you here, with some certainty, that they all will be back in the soon coming new world. He, I am confident has saved samples somewhere of all pre flood life, and they will be restored in a wonderful new world. If I'm wrong, look me up there, and I'll buy you a beer.

---

I would feel better if you bought me a beer now, and if you are right then I will buy you two.

quote:

---

OK, so you find the exact location of Eden, and I believe there will be fossils nearby! Not cambrian humans, though, unless you can find Abel. As far as the other things you mentioned, many likely weren't global.

---

And until that time you have zero evidence. I might as well create a theory that relies on ET intervention and claim that we will find a buried UFO, therefore all of my claims are real. Sorry, evidence first then conclusion.

quote:

---

Sharks, may have had a much longer lifespan then, than the dying little cambie critters,

---

Maybe they had shorter lifespans. What evidence do we go to in order to test which theory is right?

quote:

---

and as far as teeth, I don't know if sharks adapted into shedding teeth some later time, or not!

---

Every single shark today sheds its teeth. Hence, we should find shed shark teeth in the oldest marine sediments. Where are these shed teeth? If you were able to find a shed shark tooth in the cambrian this would go a long way towards falsifying evolution. In a way, you should actually hope that sharks in the past shed their teeth so that you can finally find your evidence.

quote:

---

Speaking of teeth, here is a link, that claims mammal teeth were found with dinosaurs! http://www.exn.ca/Html/Templates/topicpage.cfm?ID=1999090...

---

From your site: This is from the first paragraph, and already it is quite shaky. It is part of the theory of evolution that there were mammals around during the age of the dinosaur. This is nothing new. It is the expansion of mammals after the K-T boundary (the line that no dinosaurs crossed in the fossil record) that is a strong part of the theory of evolution. Nothing surprising about finding mammal teeth and dinosaur bones together. What would be amazing is grass pollen and human teeth. Care to show those being found with dinosaurs?Added in edit: Should have read farther into the article. The author is claiming mammalian teeth around 165 million years ago, which is twice as old as the oldest then known mammal found on Madagascar. I will have to read the Nature article and research this a bit more. Offhand, this reminds me a bit of Nebraska Man which creationists endlessly harangue on. Now that scientists are a mammal from a single tooth and creationists are ecstatic. Somewhat strange if you ask me. However, this is the type of evidence that I have been asking for. I will get back to you on the possible mammalian teeth.

quote:

---

Well, since the bible is not admissable, I don't think this can be disproved, nor proved.

---

You have yet to show that the Bible is accurate with respect to the natural world. Let's pretend I have a map of the Rockies and I am in NW Washington. I look on the map and I can't find Mt. Ranier. I look up and right in front of me and there is Mt. Ranier in all of it's glory. However, since the map doesn't show Mt. Ranier being around should I assume that the mass of rock in front of me is a mirage? Of course not. The Bible has to jive with what is found in nature, it is the map. The territory is the natural world and should be looked to first when constructing the history of the natural world. You seem to be going in the other direction, expecting the territory to fit to the map, and in doing so you will claim as many 'mirages' as it takes.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-12-2004 12:00 PMThis message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-12-2004 12:05 PM

quote:

---

But, we need to look at if the world was really all that sea covered where there even was many sharks, or just waterery in other ways, (swampy, etc?).

---

Or maybe there was more ocean, more sharks, shorter shark lifetimes, greater rate of tooth shedding, etc. in the past. Show me how this is less likely than the scenarios you are putting forth. If my scenario of more of everything is true, then there should be numerous shed shark teeth in the same layers as cambrian life. However, we never find anything linked to modern species such as sharks in the cambrian layer. Why is that?

quote:

---

guess the point is debateable, but it seems to me when men and women are together in numbers, the results are predictable! I'd go with bigger birth rates, you, I guess with smaller. Guess we have to leave that one.

---

Without a recorded census, I agree. However, I think we can both agree that there is no physical or natural law that requires population growth rates to stay the same from the inception of a species (be it creation or evolution).

quote:

---

The so called support evolution found is based on belief.

---

Au contraire, mon frere. The evidence supporting evolution is objective in nature. The evidence is available to everyone regardless of religious affiliation or world view. It is repeatable and verifiable. The reason mainstream science relies on the theory of evolution is that it's PREDICTIONS always come true. This applies to the sequencing of new genomes and newly discovered fossil species. You might have already heard about it, but TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy is a great website that discusses the scientific evidence in a way that is accessible to common person. A little knowledge in biology and geology is needed, but it is easier reading than the primary literature. For a quick run down of about 30 peices of evidence that support Macroevolution, go here. Unless you can refute the mountains of evidence at this site you are not able to claim that evolution is based only on belief. It is based on objective evidence and fulfilled predictions.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How about a more realistic interpretation, there wasn't a whole lot of life in the pre-cambrian period.
  —Loudmouth

---

​

Compared with the way they were dropping off in the cambrian, the evo oriented might almost think so!

---

Is there any evidence that falsifies the view that the cambrian fossil record is an accurate portrayal of the species diversity of that period? Again, you seem to be jumping to a conclusion without the benefit of evidence. Please show me the evidence that evidences modern species living during the Cambrian.

quote:

---

I think some evo who must have been less indoctrinated said something like' never, nada' about dinos, and mammals. I don't care that much, as it is all geek to me!.

---

If you don't understand the evidence supporting evolution, how do you know that it is wrong? Do you think it is wrong because of the evidence (of which you admittedly know very little about) or because it conflicts with your interpretation of Genesis? I am guessing the latter.

quote:

---

Millions of healings, miracles, answered prayers, fullfilled prophesies, and such count as something to me.

---

How about millions of christians dying of painful diseases, unanswered prayer, and not one prophesy that is specific enough to apply to one event or one prophesy that is supported by extra-biblical evidence. If you do a search, there are a couple threads open for discussion on fulfilled prophesy. Not one person yet has shown a prophesy that fulfills the following criteria:1. Specific: The prophesy can only apply to one event. A prophesy claiming "wars and rumors of war" for instance is much to vague and could apply to every century since the death of Jesus.2. Extra-biblical evidence: The prophesy fulfillment must be corroborated by non-biblical evidence. The bible fulfilling it's own prophecies does not count since authors could have retold events in a way that would fulfill the prophecies but not accurately portray real events.

quote:

---

No, I want the real mcoy.

---

So do we. You have yet to give us concrete evidence that modern species were alive during the time the Cambrian sediments were being laid down. You have yet to show that lifespans were significantly different. You have yet to show that the Garden of Eden was an actual, physical place. You have yet to show that sin caused the deterioration of DNA and morphology. Need I go on? On the other hand, there is another theory that explains the fossil record AND is supported by physical, objective evidence. Need I tell you what that theory is?

quote:

---

If as some say maybe half the water in the oceans was under the earth (at least a lot) then why would the seas be bigger?

---

What evidence led them to the conclusion that half of the sea water was underground?

quote:

---

How did God make fish? Millions of each species all at once?

---

What evidence led you to the conclusion that God made any fish in the manner you are portraying?

quote:

---

He didn't make man that way, for sure!

---

What evidence led you to this conclusion?

quote:

---

Now as far as Adam's teeth, or shark's teeth, again, back then, we don't really know!

---

What evidence led you to the conclusion that it was any different then that it is now?

quote:

---

Well, the cambrian was a layer of life, perhaps sharks were very few in number, as they had almost no dead things to eat! Until the explosion that is! Apparently as found so far in the cambrian, the sharks lived longer, or were very few, or something.

---

Or they weren't around at all, which is supported by their total absence in the cambrian layer.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Au contraire, mon frere. The evidence supporting evolution is objective in nature.

---

​

Certainly is, it objects to God's creation!

---

No, it objectively falsifies a literal interpretation of Genesis as a scientifically accurate model of earth's history. You are the one trying to make evolution deny God, not science.

quote:

---

quote:

---

science relies on the theory of evolution is that it's PREDICTIONS always come true.

---

​

So do bible predictions, yet they shun those!

---

Oh really!? What are the Bible's prediction on the order of fossils in the fossil record? Chapter and verse please. What are the predictions of DNA similarities including pseudogenes and HERV's found in the Bible? Chapter and verse please. Science makes SPECIFIC predictions about the natural world, bible prophecies make vague predictions about world events that are either to vague to apply to one event in particular or are only fulfilled within the bible with no extra-biblical evidence to support them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Unless you can refute the mountains of evidence at this site you are not able to claim that evolution is based only on belief

---

​

Yes I am. I saw no evidence there at all! Godless speculation.

---

All you have to do is run a PCR to find the shared pseudogenes between chimps and humans. All you have to do is look at the atavistic legs found on whales. The evidence is not speculation, but rather real observations that you can make yourself. These observations were predicted by the theory of evolution. All of these observations support the theory. It is not speculation, but rather objective observations, something you lack in support of your theory. Also, I could call creationist theories "Shiva-less", "Zeus-less", or even "Reincarnation-less" speculations. Science only ignores one more god than you do.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Please show me the evidence that evidences modern species living during the Cambrian.

---

​

It could well be, in most of the earth, what you call 'modern ones' were not!?

---

Buffalo are modern aren't they? Where are they in the cambrian fossil record? Dolphins are modern are they not? Where are they in the cambrian? Great White sharks are modern are they not? Where are their fossils and shed teeth?

quote:

---

As you don't show it was not. All you can do is speculate on the evidence, as to how it must have made itself, rather than be made.

---

You are the one speculating. You claim that mammals were concentrated WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I claim that mammals were not around during the cambrian, sighting no modern mammal or non-mammalian species in the cambrian layers. You claim that sediment deposition was different in the past. I claim, WITH EVIDENCE, that the same sediment deposition we OBSERVE TODAY is able to explain the fossil layering. You point the finger and claim that we are speculating yet you have yet to come up with positive evidence for ANY of your claims. Are you going to continue to turn you back on the evidence that God put in the earth for you?

quote:

---

There are different opinions, and models on all this of course. The one I had in the back of my mind was Walt Brown's idea, that about 1/2 the water came up from fountains of the deep.

---

What evidence led Walt Brown to believe that 1/2 of the water came up from the fountains of the deep? What evidence led him to believe that there were fountains of the deep?

quote:

---

As is that they were localised, and long lived.

---

What evidence led you to this conclusion?

quote:

---

What evidence do you have that says we weren't? Or that shark's teeth fell out then? Or that He did not make men, and fish? Etc. The evidence we do have in the cambrian is of many creatures dying, and being fossilized.

---

Let's take your argument to an extreme. Let's say that I am accused of murdering someone. There was a struggle, and in this struggle the knife that killed the victim also happened to scratch the culprit. Through DNA fornesics, they find both my blood and the victims on the blade. However, using you logic I can get off. All I have to do is claim that DNA functioned differently on that day. I claim that DNA's properties were so different on that day that it is impossible to use it as evidence. Bingo, I get off since they are not able to prove me wrong.Let's take a second look. EVERY shark today sheds it's teeth. Also, there is evidence that pre-historic sharks also shed there teeth. One of the best examples is the species C. megalodon. This shark was over 40 feet long, twice the size of the largest shark today, the Great White. We find it's fossilized teeth washed up on shore and in the fossil record. The stunning part is, at least for you, is that we only find the teeth in the same strata that we find megalodon. And again, every shark today sheds its teeth. I have positive evidence that sharks have always shed their teeth, what evidence do you have that they didn't?Secondly, I am not arguing against the fact that things died and were fossilized during the cambrian. I am arguing that everything died and was buried in the cambrian which means if there were mammals around then they should have been fossilized as well. Your argment is that they were concentrated, so it is up to you to show concentrated mammal fossils in cambrian strata. I can't argue against a point that is not supported by positive evidence. Right now I am arguing against the fantasies in your head which is a little difficult since I can't objectively test other people's fantasies.

quote:

---

No one seems to have much to falsify anything in this thread! Genesis remains unfalsified

---

The fact that there no one has found any mammal fossils in the cambrian falsifies a literal interpretation of Genesis.

quote:

---

I'm talking about Jesus, here, and His talking about the flood, His book, His creation of all things.

---

And you have yet to show that he was correct with regard to the actual natural history of the earth. You have also yet to show that Jesus was not talking metaphorically as he often did.

quote:

---

Fossils? He is a God of the living!! Indirectly, we have enough clues in the bible, though to get a pretty good idea.

---

Chapter and verse please. I want the indirect clues that would lead us to believe that mammals were concentrated and that they shouldn't be in the cambrian deposits. I also want the indirect clues for sharks not shedding their teeth.

quote:

---

"One hypothesis about the junk is that these chromosomal regions are trash heaps of defunct genes, sometimes known as pseudogenes, which have been cast aside and fragmented during evolution.Evidence for a related hypothesis suggests that the junk represents the accumulated DNA of failed viruses. Yet another hypothesis is that the junk DNA provides a reservoire of sequence from which potentially advantageous new genes can emerge.

---

All the above is indeed what is hypothesized for the sequences of non-transcribed DNA. This is best dealt with in another thread. For now let's focus on why we don't see modern species in the cambrian. Sorry for dragging things off topic.

quote:

---

Maybe the little mouse that you seem to think turned into a whale ate them! And I know, you at least have the evidence. Little teeth were found! Boy, you guys know how to spin a story out of a few teeth!

---

Was that the same whale that swallowed Jonah? At least the theory that we construct is consistent with the evidence while your pseudo-theory is not. Isn't that the point, that theories are correct if they match the evidence?

quote:

---

Example: The shark was real big. This indicates to me it may have been before the flood, or, since it was a nice hearty specimen, even at, or post flood, swimming in flood waters. I'd have to see what layer it was at.

---

Since you know which layers are from the flood and the exact mechanisms that caused fossil sorting you should already know which strata it is in. Care to make a prediction.Also, read this article. The oldest shark teeth found now have a shark fossil to go with them. It seems that even the oldest sharks were shedding their teeth. Again, why aren't there shed shark teeth in the cambrian, and what evidence led you to your conclusions? And secondly, what evidence could potentially falsify your position?

quote:

---

On the contrary. I don't expect them globally, so I'm fine, thank you very much. Those few places at that time where some early death occured, such as Abel, would have been near Eden. For all we know this is a mile deep in muck under the Gulf! If we did find something, from some animal or person, etc. my model would be intact still. Yours would be destroyed. So keep digging!

---

So you are saying that we should find mammals in the cambrian strata. Where are they? Oh, buried where we will never find them. How very convenient for you. Guess what, my UFO's are buried right next to them, along with Jimmy Hoffa. Again, you are creating theories WITH NO POSITIVE PROOF. Hence, there is no model to be intact to begin with. I freely admit that evolution would be destroyed if mammals were found in cambrian strata, hence I am not as dogmatic or blinded by faith as you are. What would falsify your position that mammals were concentrated?

quote:

---

DNA from blood samples is one thing. No one said a thing about this.

---

What you are claiming is that observations today do not apply to the past. For instance, all sharks shed their teeth today. You say this shouldn't apply since we weren't there to witness it. I say that DNA acted differently on the second Tuesday in March. Since no one looked at my DNA on the second Tuesday in March, I am right until someone proves me wrong. I am using the same logic as you.

quote:

---

I think I gave a link for that. My opinion is that there may have been cosmic help in the affair. If I am right, Walt's model in this instance would be off.

---

So, your theory relies on miracles. Thanks for cluing me in. Why do you then demand physical evidence from evolutionists when you don't even hold yourself to the same criteria?

quote:

---

But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

---

Let me use an analogy:Just as the tortoise beat the hare, so shall the steady of spirit beat the swift.Does that mean the tortoise and the hare really had a race as depicted in Aesop's Fables?Jesus is using the fable of Noah to illustrate a point.

quote:

---

can assure you, the 'whale' that swollowed Jonah did not have parents who were little rhodents!!

---

I was just inserting some humor to lighten the mood. Hope you got a chuckle out of it like I did.

quote:

---

Well, wonder of wonders, what do we have right here, kinda marking the very cambrian layer we are talking about!? A very marked change (decrease, I think it was) in one of the stable isotopes of carbon itself! Carbon 13!!!!!!!!!!

---

What is the mechanism that ties C13 and reduced lifspans, etc.? You are really grasping at straws now. "IT WAS THE C13!!!". How about this, you give me positive evidence that mammals were around the same time as trilobites. Care to take me up on the challenge?

quote:

---

I predict you will continue to make presumtious claims like how I know it all. I guess I should take it as a compliment.

---

Actually, I was shooting for "patronizing", but take it how you want.

quote:

---

I guess the teeth you say were shed here never made it into the article you gave. There it talks of something similar to a shark, but with 2 sets of teeth.

---

Read again: Previous to finding the fossil its teeth were the only clue they had of it's existence.

quote:

---

If the teeth were shed, how did they end up together with the fossil?

---

Maybe because sharks evolved, so that the layers without shark teeth indicate the time before sharks evolved? Or that the strata indicate the species that were around while the strata was being deposited? Why do we only see the shed shark teeth in the same layer as the whole animal fossils? Oh yeah, they were immortal at one time. Give me a break.

quote:

---

I don't think I said we should find them! I said, if were to find Eden, we may find a small number.

---

So we will find mammals in the cambrian strata? Maybe just a few, but it is possible? What if I said that we will find alien spacecraft in cambrian strata? I have the same amount of evidence that you do.

quote:

---

Like you try to claim known birth rates don't apply. Of course very many observations do not apply! How would today's rates apply to the flood, or clear back near creation?

---

First, you have to have positive evidence that a global flood happened before you can use it as a premise. Secondly, birth rates are as fluid as daily temperatures. There is no reason why birth rates should remain constant. Sharks shed their teeth to make room for the developing teeth behind them. What do we find in ancient shark fossils? Multiple rows of teeth in the same orientation as today's sharks. It seems very logical that ancient sharks would shed their teeth. Therefore, geology and evolution predicts that you will not find shark teeth in strata dating older than the oldest shark fossil. Again, another prediction borne out in the article cited earlier. Another test that evolution passes.

quote:

---

Ha! At least we admit God did it!

---

So, how did you rule out the influence of Vishnu or Zeus? What objective evidence led you to the conclusion that Genesis was correct but the rest of the religious creation stories are false?

quote:

---

After all, pulling the known universe out of a cosmic cup of soup, is not like getting a rabbit out of a hat!

---

Your right. One is physics and chemistry while the other is done at a birthday party.

quote:

---

'Better science' than our little flesh and blood pitiful 'foolish' (In the sense God says man's wisdom is foolishness to Him)-present science, might be a better term. But for all intents and purposes that could concern you, we can say it was miracles!

---

So I take it you go to your pastor when you need to clear an infection?

quote:

---

If I went to church, I might do just that. Why, you got something against prayer?

---

No, I have a problem with hypocracy. People claim that science is a godless endeavor, yet they trust science to help them cure diseases. They trust science to peer into the past for paternity tests and crime scene forensics, yet this same methodology doesn't apply to biology since it conflicts with their preconcieved religious ideology.

quote:

---

OK so how do we know this thing shed the teeth that were found as part of it's complete body?

---

Teeth were found separate from any complete fossil. Let's run through this again. Sharks throughout history, both today and in the fossil record, have multiple rows of teeth. Sharks today shed their front teeth which are replaced by the teeth in the rows behind it. In the fossil record we find teeth separate from the jaws of sharks. The jaws we do find have mutliple rows of teeth just like sharks do today. Whenever we find shark teeth we find shark fossils. Where we don't find teeth we don't find shark fossils. Your theory is that sharks didn't shed their teeth and their lifespans were significantly longer and this is why we find zero evidence of their existence when trilobites were still around. I have another theory. Aliens beamed the sharks and the shark teeth up into their UFO's so that they could play a little cosmic joke on humans. Guess what, my UFO theory has as much evidence as your theory. Prove that UFO's didn't beam up sharks and their teeth.

quote:

---

After all, you are almost a shark psyhic!

---

Who is the one claiming longer shark lifespans that have never been observed? Who is claiming that not one shark shed it's teeth like they do RIGHT NOW? I observe, you make claims that are not based in reality.

quote:

---

i wasn't aware of any examples of megaladon, other than teeth.

---

I once found a picture of a whole jaw, but I can't seem to find it again. I thought I posted it in another thread, but who knows. Anyway, megalodon vertebrae have also been found which supports a large body to go with the teeth.

quote:

---

fairly obvious point comes to mind about sharks in the cambrian. Just because it is assumed most cambrian life was sea life, was it really?

---

There could have been worms that could live in moist soil and respire through moist skin, as they do now. However, there wasn't an organism with lungs till well after the Cambrian, at least among the fossils collected so far. The first organisms on DRY land were plants, and animals followed after plants as they were a prodigious food source. Before that, the only reason to come up on land was to avoid predators.

quote:

---

In other words, could cambrian life have been living outside of a strict 'sea' condition?

---

How about the question at hand. Where are the sharks in the cambrian? We find their vertebrae in the correct layers per evolutionary theories, we don't even have to rely on teeth. Where are the shark vertebrae in the cambrian? Oh right, they lived longer as evidenced by . . . nothing.