Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 61 of 232 (123829)
07-11-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Chiroptera
07-11-2004 7:59 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
Why not? Because of assumed long age?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Chiroptera, posted 07-11-2004 7:59 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Chiroptera, posted 07-12-2004 1:31 PM simple has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 232 (123830)
07-11-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by simple
07-11-2004 9:49 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 9:49 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 10:40 PM jar has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 232 (123831)
07-11-2004 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Loudmouth
07-11-2004 12:15 AM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Loudmouth, posted 07-11-2004 12:15 AM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Loudmouth, posted 07-12-2004 12:56 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 232 (123832)
07-11-2004 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
07-11-2004 9:56 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 07-11-2004 9:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 07-11-2004 10:47 PM simple has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 232 (123833)
07-11-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by simple
07-11-2004 10:40 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 10:40 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 11:04 PM jar has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 232 (123836)
07-11-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jar
07-11-2004 10:47 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 07-11-2004 10:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 07-11-2004 11:19 PM simple has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 232 (123839)
07-11-2004 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by simple
07-11-2004 11:04 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 11:04 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 11:31 PM jar has replied
 Message 70 by edge, posted 07-11-2004 11:56 PM jar has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 232 (123843)
07-11-2004 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
07-11-2004 11:19 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 07-11-2004 11:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 07-11-2004 11:48 PM simple has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 69 of 232 (123847)
07-11-2004 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by simple
07-11-2004 11:31 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 11:31 PM simple has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 70 of 232 (123849)
07-11-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
07-11-2004 11:19 PM


Ark in wonderland...
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 07-11-2004 11:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 07-12-2004 12:07 AM edge has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 71 of 232 (123855)
07-12-2004 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by edge
07-11-2004 11:56 PM


Re: Ark in wonderland...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by edge, posted 07-11-2004 11:56 PM edge has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 232 (123944)
07-12-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by simple
07-11-2004 10:31 PM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
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:
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:
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 PM
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-12-2004 12:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 10:31 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by simple, posted 07-13-2004 12:53 AM Loudmouth has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 232 (123955)
07-12-2004 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by simple
07-11-2004 9:50 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by simple, posted 07-11-2004 9:50 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by simple, posted 07-12-2004 11:54 PM Chiroptera has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 232 (124150)
07-12-2004 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Chiroptera
07-12-2004 1:31 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Chiroptera, posted 07-12-2004 1:31 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 07-13-2004 12:12 AM simple has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 75 of 232 (124153)
07-13-2004 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by simple
07-12-2004 11:54 PM


Re: sure looks like it!
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by simple, posted 07-12-2004 11:54 PM simple has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024