|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: cambrian death cause | |||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Why not? Because of assumed long age?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Couple problems.
There are several distinctly different Cambrian periods and there is lots of evidence of gradual evolution of the critters over this period. Second, the Cambrian period lasts over 50 Million Years. Also remember that the Cambrian is only a small portion of the Paleozoic Era. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Yes, but was it by the millions, or much more isolated? -Abraham-- His life is a matter of biblical record. quote:And visa versa. 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. 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: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: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:Well, since the bible is not admissable, I don't think this can be disproved, nor proved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But what we see is not long lived versus shortlived critters. What we see is change, evolution of the critters during the period.
Remember, the Cambrian Period is just a short, tiny part of the history. Afterall, 50 millions years isn't all that long. And, as I said, it is still just a little part of the Paleozoic Era. You keep wanting to go back to some outside force or creation or such when there is absolutely no need. Just look at the evidence and I think you'll come arouond. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: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:And you're telling me!? I know it was short, it is you who says very much otherwise!!! quote:No need, of course for God! Why, we are presented with an alternative here, however cunningly crafted, and diobolically demented!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. Well, as a Christian I can only tell you what most everyone else sees. And what you see in the Cambrian is a gradual change over 50 Million years or so.
And you're telling me!? I know it was short, it is you who says very much otherwise!!! Well, 50 Million years is only a brief instant in the history of the Earth.
No need, of course for God! Why, we are presented with an alternative here, however cunningly crafted, and diobolically demented! But what does God have to do with Evolution? That's why almost all of the Christian Churches support the Theory of Evolution and speak out againt Creationists. God deals with WHY. There is nothing in Christianity that precludes Evolution as the HOW. After all, even Genesis shows that Genesis is not a book to take literally. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:What you think you see there may be that. I propose here that that is not at all what we see. quote: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:Jesus spoke of the flood, was He unrepresentative of your idea of christianity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You can assert anything you want. That does not change the evidence. De Nile is not just a river.
Jesus taught by using tale, fable and parable. In particular, next to example, parable was his biggest tools. It is not at all surprising that he'd use the myth or parable of the Flood as one of his teaching tools. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, you could say more than this, but to what use? Ark keeps talking about a great dying in the Cambrian and yet there is NO evidence that there is any more extinction there than at any other time in the fossil record, including the present. And yet, this is the starting premise. How can anything that follows make any sense? There is little in Ark's posts that bear on reality, and I suspect it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think he can and will come around. I have faith in him. He's struggling with large volumes of new information. That information runs counter to what he's been told in the past. That's a lot to take in and it will take him a while to get a handle on all of it.
The biggest hurdle IMHO is that he's been taught that Evolution throws God out of the equation. It will take him a while to realize that there is nothing related to Evolution that is anti-God or anti-Christian. It will take a while for him to realize that the Theory of Evolution is far more complete and holds far fewer inconsistencies than Genesis. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote:quote: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: 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: I would feel better if you bought me a beer now, and if you are right then I will buy you two.
quote: 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: Maybe they had shorter lifespans. What evidence do we go to in order to test which theory is right?
quote: 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: From your site:
It's long been suspected that the earliest mammals arose after the dinosaurs became extinct. But that's not so - at least according to a paper published in the latest issue of the journal Nature. 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: 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 PM This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-12-2004 12:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Because 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.
That is why most Christians before Darwin were Old Earth Creationists. They felt that the geologic record showed multiple creation events over a very long time. Young Earth Creationism really didn't get started until after Darwin published his theories -- in fact, I think that YEC was a sudden reaction against the proposal that humans evolved from "lower" animals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
the comment was that there is not a single example of anything nearly recent in the cambrian layer.
how do you explain that? i've asked the question before. how did all of the cambrian creatures die of, without a single non-cambrian creature dying, or leaving any other trace evidence in any of the THREE cambrian layers?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024