Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   cambrian death cause
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 232 (123563)
07-10-2004 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by arachnophilia
07-10-2004 4:54 AM


Re: best explanation omits Granny
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 07-10-2004 4:54 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 07-10-2004 5:41 AM simple has not replied
 Message 49 by edge, posted 07-10-2004 1:23 PM simple has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 47 of 232 (123564)
07-10-2004 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by simple
07-10-2004 5:12 AM


Re: best explanation omits Granny
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.
ok, we we'll start with the grand canyon. do you deny that it is over a mile deep at places, and that cambrian rock is right near the bottom of that mile? i'm not talking all over the world, i'm talking in ONE PLACE.
the cambrian layers, plural -- there's three of them, are below 8 other distinct layers of rock in the grand canyon. each layer has different composition, and is cleanly delineated from the last, which is evidence that they were made seperately. and no, they are not sorted by density or mass.
the grand canyon doesn't even go as high in geologic column as the triassic. the column itself is made by overlapping sets of strata that match.
there's another problem. the precambrian layer isn't level. it's what's called an angular unconformity. the layers on top are all level, but the precambrian section is at quite a steep angle, and is broken off jagged and slightly impedes into the cambrian layer.
let me know if work how a flood or death rays or whatever did that.
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?
YES! http://EvC Forum: cambrian death cause -->EvC Forum: cambrian death cause
you refuse debate my reading of the bible, which clearly indicates that people existed outside of the garden, even if you read it literally.
Have you shown reason to assume that the same scenario could not have been with other lifeforms? No. So go ahead, if you can.
the second follows from the first.
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.
the localization of everything non-cambrian is neccessary for your speculative argument, since any evidence of "higher" life existing in the same place at the same time is absolutely devoid. i don't even know what you're arguing, exactly. but you're trying to find a way to have all of the cambrian life forms die off, and leave no evidence of anythign else existing at the same time.
tell me, did cambrian life forms exist outside of the garden of eden before adam got the boot?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by simple, posted 07-10-2004 5:12 AM simple has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 232 (123609)
07-10-2004 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by simple
07-10-2004 2:06 AM


Re: creation creatures in stone
quote:
Such as the cambrian fossils in question, and the old evolutionary attempt to explain them, as opposed to cambrian creation life explaining it better.
Not much of an explanation. You have made an assertion. Now back it up.
quote:
My attempt here to take a specific layer, I thought was a concrete attempt at trying to explain it better.
Then you have failed. You have done nothing more than say 'my way is better'. That is not science and it is certainly not debating.
quote:
I am not getting much in the way of a fight from you guys.
Not surprising since you have given us nothing to refute.
quote:
Is it just because they stuck this here on the misc area, and not too many bright lights frequent it?
I've noticed the same thing, but it is common to all boards. The bright lights of creationism seldom venture here.
quote:
Or because you are ill prepared for a challenge on this front?
We are ill-prepared to take on content-free posts. And frankly your harangues are simply boring. Now, if implied insults are your best points, I think I'll go do something interesting like weed the garden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by simple, posted 07-10-2004 2:06 AM simple has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 49 of 232 (123611)
07-10-2004 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by simple
07-10-2004 5:12 AM


Explanation???
quote:
More than a mile all over the world? No. If some things were piled up, there are ways to look at it, perhaps, ...
What do you mean 'perahps'? There either are or there aren't. Tell us what they are.
quote:
...other than time periods of fantastic proportions.
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.
quote:
Well, we know men were localized as they were only, at one time in the garden, and there were only two of them!
WE know no such thing. You have only a myth to tell you this.
(snip)
quote:
My model does not hinge on any such thing.
You have no model. Only a story. Where is the evidence?
quote:
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?
Well, if you didn't start with a preconceived notion about a mythical place, your question might make sense.
quote:
As I said, show me why, and we'll deal with that.
You keep asking us to show you things, and yet you have shown nothing. 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. Why conjure up some complex notion of a garden that you cannot locate in the geological record, with supernatural beings and processes that cannot be observed in the present and defy the laws of science? Why not a simple explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by simple, posted 07-10-2004 5:12 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by simple, posted 07-10-2004 4:52 PM edge has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 232 (123647)
07-10-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by simple
07-09-2004 7:25 PM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by simple, posted 07-09-2004 7:25 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by simple, posted 07-10-2004 5:46 PM Loudmouth has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 232 (123654)
07-10-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by edge
07-10-2004 1:23 PM


elusive edenic pond
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!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by edge, posted 07-10-2004 1:23 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 07-10-2004 5:41 PM simple has not replied
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 07-10-2004 6:05 PM simple has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 232 (123660)
07-10-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by simple
07-10-2004 4:52 PM


Re: elusive edenic pond
Well, what can be shown is that during the Cambrian Period there was lots of life.
What can not be shown is that there were any humans, mammals, dinosaurs, trees, flowers or grass during the Cambrian.
So any conjecture that humans might have exited is certainly nothing but pure speculation. Any conjecture that there was a Garden of Eden goes into the realm of myth.
The existence of the fabled garden may or may not be true. But it is certainly not needed to explain any of the evidence that is available from the Cambrian Period. Since it is totally unnecessary, there is no reason to bring it into the discussion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by simple, posted 07-10-2004 4:52 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 232 (123663)
07-10-2004 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Loudmouth
07-10-2004 4:14 PM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Loudmouth, posted 07-10-2004 4:14 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Loudmouth, posted 07-11-2004 12:15 AM simple has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 54 of 232 (123665)
07-10-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by simple
07-10-2004 4:52 PM


accept??
...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
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?
You get muddier and muddier. Please clarify this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by simple, posted 07-10-2004 4:52 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by simple, posted 07-10-2004 7:26 PM NosyNed has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 232 (123675)
07-10-2004 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by NosyNed
07-10-2004 6:05 PM


sure looks like it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 07-10-2004 6:05 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 07-11-2004 7:55 PM simple has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 232 (123677)
07-11-2004 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by simple
07-10-2004 5:46 PM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by simple, posted 07-10-2004 5:46 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Chiroptera, posted 07-11-2004 12:50 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 63 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 10:31 PM Loudmouth has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 232 (123744)
07-11-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Loudmouth
07-11-2004 12:15 AM


A quibble.
quote:
There is no evidence that Abraham lived that long....
Or even that he lived at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Loudmouth, posted 07-11-2004 12:15 AM Loudmouth has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 58 of 232 (123815)
07-11-2004 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by simple
07-10-2004 7:26 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
What are you talking about???
There was a period of about 10 million years or so in which we have fossilzied remains of a diversity of life not appearing before. These represent very primative forms of the major phyla extant today.
It seems you might be equating this with creation week. That this was the only time of creation is an idea that does not account for the record we see at all. There is a record of ongoing new forms arising, both before and after the cambrian.
Exactly what are you suggestion accounts for what we see.
Please re summarize just what you are suggesting in this thread? It seems to be getting a bit confused to me. Can you make it in point form, clear and crisp?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by simple, posted 07-10-2004 7:26 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Chiroptera, posted 07-11-2004 7:59 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 60 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 9:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 232 (123817)
07-11-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NosyNed
07-11-2004 7:55 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
Good point, NosyNed. If the Cambrian "explosion" is evidence of some sort of creation event, it surely is not the creation event described in Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 07-11-2004 7:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 9:50 PM Chiroptera has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 232 (123828)
07-11-2004 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NosyNed
07-11-2004 7:55 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 07-11-2004 7:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 07-11-2004 9:56 PM simple has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024