cambrian death cause

Life, yes. So did God make animals and all types of life everywhere on the planet? Or did He just spread perhaps the kind of life (low lifes) that would be useful in helping prepare the earth for man's (and animal's etc.) spread outward? We should be I think careful in blanket assumptions, like He made men, and all creatures by the billions, all over the earth in a New York minute! Is this what the evidence shows us? If it is, then can you tell us what kind of effect the split had that would have been so selective in fossilizing just the low lifes? I'm willing to rule out things if it is really not the truth, and not according to the records, which include the bible. Also, could you try not to take up 14 short posts to make a point? Spit it out, man!

quote:

---

you completely ignored my biblical evidence that people were not immortal inside the garden if eden

---

I'm salivating for the time I deal with that one, but would prefer to try to keep it for now, not a bible debate, which I have little worry about. The question is, does not this death of cambrian creation life better fit the evidence than one of evolution? If not, why not?

quote:

---

nice and all, but where did cain's wife come from? not adam and eve.

---

No problem for me. But see above answer.

quote:

---

wihc contains triassic and early jurassic rock, and bryce canyon, which contains jurassic through tertiary (almost modern) rock, that's about 9000 feet of sedimentary deposits.

---

OK, and these sedimentary layers relate how to the cambrian life that died? Are you suggesting they all are part of the cambrian?

quote:

---

Such as?

---

Such as the cambrian fossils in question, and the old evolutionary attempt to explain them, as opposed to cambrian creation life explaining it better.

quote:

---

you're going to have to come up with something concrete to be taken seriously here.

---

My attempt here to take a specific layer, I thought was a concrete attempt at trying to explain it better. I am not getting much in the way of a fight from you guys. Is it just because they stuck this here on the misc area, and not too many bright lights frequent it? Or because you are ill prepared for a challenge on this front?

quote:

---

no, they're ON TOP of cambrian and precambrian rock. the simple amount of stuff on top of those layers suggests that, by your theory, we're accumulating one and a half feet of rock a year, which simply isn't so.

---

It suggests no such thing! What would how the earth was near the time of Eden, have to do with today's layer accumulation rates? Or the time of the flood?

quote:

---

"well maybe it killed off all of this type, without leaving any evidence that anything else existed at the same time."

---

Existed? I haven't heard any arguements about how life was concentrated in Eden, except for some types. So, till I can get past that, I don't need to go any further. If I do need to, I can go a hec of a lot further.

quote:

---

yes, it is. you said that there were no other people besides adam and eve, who were originally in eden. the bible mentions someone who was not

---

Dashing your pet bible ideas. as tempting as it is, is not my priority now.

quote:

---

you're talking about cambrian rock. do you realize there's more than a mile of other rock on top of it in the geologic column?

---

More than a mile all over the world? No. If some things were piled up, there are ways to look at it, perhaps, other than time periods of fantastic proportions.

quote:

---

So cambrian life existed all over, but more "advanced" life was localized?

---

Well, we know men were localized as they were only, at one time in the garden, and there were only two of them! Have you shown reason to assume this was not the case? Have you shown reason to assume that the same scenario could not have been with other lifeforms? No. So go ahead, if you can.

quote:

---

seriously. my objection to your argument, which hinges on no one existing outside eden, has gone unanswered otherwise.

---

My model does not hinge on any such thing. Of course there eventually were people out of the garden. Adam and Eve among them, as they got the boot. But how would this much affect whether most of the world had only the lower lifeforms dying in it, and getting fossilized? As I said, show me why, and we'll deal with that.

quote:

---

What do you mean 'perahps'? There either are or there aren't. Tell us what they are.

---

Back from weeding are we? OK, yes we know creation folks already have lots of ideas on this. As far as what to apply, should we accept the premise of the cambrian layer being a result of a mass dying of created life, then I'll have a look at it. As it is, it seems you don't yet want to concede the cambrian, yet, feel no or little need to refute the possibility that this thread raises. If you are saying that I better watch out, beyond the cambrian, there lies other things, I know that! I'm saying, you better watch out (evo accepters) if indeed a better explanation for the (more or less) foundation layer exists! I supplied an abundance of life to work with, that would account for all the fossils there. I supplied what many consider a better explanation than dissappearing transitions and wonderous multitudious mutations of Granny bacteria-namely that the explosion of life we know about was a created explosion. So what do you got to challege that?

quote:

---

Then tell us what some of those alternatives are. You might start by telling us why there are evaporites, animal tracks and desert deposits in the middle of your flood.

---

What flood is this? we are still in the cambrian! Do you say the great flood of Noah killed the cambrian creatures? Things like evaporites I think come later? (Noun 1. evaporite - the sediment that is left after the evaporation of seawater -websters....well in some cases what causes things to evaporate? How about a great wind? Seawater? easy as pie, in a flood scenario, but as I say we are clear back in the cambrian for now!)

quote:

---

WE know no such thing. You have only a myth to tell you this.

---

(about Eden) Well, then, back to real God omitting science for a minute here then. Can you give me the coordinates of the primordal pond you think our ancestors crawled out of? Was there many of these edenic ponds? How many, and where were they? Surely, since it is not a myth, you can do a little geology, and geneology!

quote:

---

The answer, if I can read your muddled question properly, is that there were no humans present at the time. Neither were there mammals nor reptiles nor flowering plants.

---

All rise. Let us bow our heads here in a moment of silence, as the dispersal of our cherished history is spoken. There were no men, or women at this stage of holy closeness to our bacteria ancestors. And recite the mammal mantra now, there were none, to say otherwise is religion.
Well, you certainly gave Adam the evo 'bum's rush'! Here's your fig leaf, what's your hurry!
By the way, how is it we know there were none of these things? Simple proclamation? No, we need some scientific evidence here, not just religious dogma!!!!!

quote:

---

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.

---

Good points. Seems to me though that even Abraham lived about 175 years, so lifespans are much shorter now. Also in many western countries, birthrates are in crisis, and mass immigration is needed. 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.

quote:

---

Creationists like yourself claim that the fossil record is complete, that there are not any transitional forms. ....also claim that fossilization is quite common,... as your claim that there should be billions of fossilized humans in the fossil record

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

I said men lived near a thousand years at the time, and that we were concentrated in or, later, near Eden. Where does this have men fossilized globally in the cambrian? This thread deals not so much with usual creationist stuff, as the cambrian in particular. So what I would expect is so far, what we see in the layer in question.

quote:

---

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.

---

Compared to evolution thinking I imagine it would almost always be what you would call 'quickly'. When conditions are right, such as mud, etc, in a flood. Other times, as in the case of I think bison, conditions after the flood were such, if I heard this one right, that we don't really have many fossils from them.

quote:

---

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

---

Didnt 26 million people die in ww2 alone? How many die of stress related things like heart problems? 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?

quote:

---

Was mist enough? Does a river form in your front yard because of the morning dew?

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Could Earth’s Mountain Ranges Form in Less Than an Hour?
Here a case is laid out for how it would be possible, even likely. Anyhow, unless it becomes a major cambrian issue, I guess it don't much matter?
The creation explosion it seems to me in this layer better explains the evidence.

quote:

---

I don't understand this part. Are you saying we have to accept one of your speculations before you'll have a look at it? What are we supposed to be conceding about the cambrian?

---

Well, in other words, should some reason be demonstrated that the creation explosion of the cambrian does not account, or could not account for the rcord we see, then we can move on. So far, some people cry foul that creation in the cambrian be considered at all, instead of evolution. But no convincing reasons yet have been put forward. To say there were certain fossils missing means nothing to a creation model. We have a record of where man was. I asked for the evo pond (s) location, but got none. At least Eden was in the vicinity of the gulf, and middle east area. (no I don't want to quibble about some minority opinion it was somewhere else here). So since I explained the missing fossils, besides chiding the antiquitous record we do have, what reason can you give me to reject it? So far, as seen at least in this thread, the evidence fits for the cambrian. Evolution's story seems complicated, sketchy, missing components, and utterly assumptive, as well as more and more being seen to be religiously anti bible, and God.

quote:

---

There is a record of ongoing new forms arising, both before and after the cambrian.

---

My proposal here in this thread, is asking if the new life forms were the result of creation. What we see in the cambrian then actually a record of an explosion of creation week, now having a shortened lifespan, and therefore dying, to form the cambrian. Not as is interpreted, evolution of new forms over long time. Very simple idea. Adam, Eve, and children, at this time possibly still in the Garden, or just getting driven out, therefore the ark like setting of the garden area, the only place on earth where humans were. (possibly many plants, and most animals, etc, as in the ark situation) Thus, these types of fossils would not be found globally. In addition, with a very much longer life, men, and animals would go on and on, long after the little cambrian, globally spread critters dyed, according to their length of life. Obviously, for whatever reason, in this case fantastically shorter than men's. (Even as little bug type things now generally also would be even than our present lifespans!)

Why not? Because of assumed long age?

quote:

---

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

---

Yes, but was it by the millions, or much more isolated?
-Abraham-- His life is a matter of biblical record.

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.

---

And visa versa.

quote:

---

We have pre-cambrian fossils as well. How do those fit into your story?

---

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. If not, and this is pretty unrealistic, then there is the pre cambrian 'normal' death rate for the creatures in question, which was much, much less than the shortened lifespans, and, hence, we find much, much, less fossils.

quote:

---

We don't find anything in the cambrian that even resembles living species we see today.

---

Tragic, isn't it? 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.

quote:

---

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

---

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. Sharks, may have had a much longer lifespan then, than the dying little cambie critters, and as far as teeth, I don't know if sharks adapted into shedding teeth some later time, or not! peaking of teeth, here is a link, that claims mammal teeth were found with dinosaurs! http://www.exn.ca/Html/Templates/topicpage.cfm?ID=1999090...

quote:

---

You have yet to show any evidence that people were alive during the cambrian. Positive evidence would really help you out.

---

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

Well, assuming each cute little cambrian creature evolved over millions of years from other cute little cambrian creatures, then it would take the kind of riddiculous time you recite.
As far as cambrian layers, why the world was going through change, and creatures had different lifespans, so we would expect different layers with different creatures.

quote:

---

But what we see is not long lived versus shortlived critters. What we see is change, evolution of the critters during the period.

---

Says you! I say a wonderful full spectrum of creation, which some God ignorer might like to feebly try attribute, by reason of similar looking creatures, to some rash, baseless, fanciful fable.

quote:

---

Remember, the Cambrian Period is just a short, tiny part of the history.

---

And you're telling me!? I know it was short, it is you who says very much otherwise!!!

quote:

---

You keep wanting to go back to some outside force or creation or such when there is absolutely no need.

---

No need, of course for God! Why, we are presented with an alternative here, however cunningly crafted, and diobolically demented!

quote:

---

what you see in the Cambrian is a gradual change

---

What you think you see there may be that. I propose here that that is not at all what we see.

quote:

---

That's why almost all of the Christian Churches support the Theory of Evolution and speak out againt Creationists

---

Most religious people at Jesus' time spoke out against Him as well. They also supported things He was against. Religious opinion only goes so far.

quote:

---

God deals with WHY. There is nothing in Christianity that precludes Evolution as the HOW.

---

Jesus spoke of the flood, was He unrepresentative of your idea of christianity?

quote:

---

the Cambrian doesn't show even one single species that is alive today. If the Cambrian "explosion" indicates a creation event, it is a dfferent creation event than described in Genesis.

---

Not at all. Only different than you imagined it to be. Because something is extinct does not mean it was not created! Now, there might even have been a reason we aren't privy to why all those creatures existed then. Let's just grab one reason quickly, as a ferinstance. If God say, needed to plant a garden, maybe one reaon was beacuse the rest of the world was not ideal for man and beast at this stage. Maybe these little creatures, you know, like worms in a garden, were doing some important work in getting the soil, swamp, land, whatever ready for us! In such a case, it would not be a big surprise they went extinct, as thins changed.
As far as your thoughts on 'christians' thinking there were 'multiple creations', I don't think this was as widespread as you think. The bible, and Jesus, don't talk about this. I'd say it would have been fringe.