cambrian death cause

quote:

---

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

---

"Sharks have a lifespan of 40 to 50 years. " Most sites say shark lifespan is not known. ( so how are these poor no littles even about the modern going to tell me how it was near creation?!) I guess we could take this as a ballpark figure. http://www.no-pest.com/GreatWhiteShark.htmThe Lamprey is one similar creature to those in Burgess, it's age (Search the AnAge Database)
(Search the AnAge Database)
seems to be less, depending on species, around 4 time less than shark, down to more than 20 times less.
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?).

quote:

---

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.

---

I 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

The so called support evolution found is based on belief.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

If I trusted the net, and evo site more, it would be a deal. As it is, I don't want to get too personal, the black helicopters might appear!

quote:

---

It is part of the theory of evolution that there were mammals around during the age of the dinosaur

---

Well, fine, if that's really the evo theory on the matter. 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!.

quote:

---

You have yet to show that the Bible is accurate with respect to the natural world.

---

Millions of healings, miracles, answered prayers, fullfilled prophesies, and such count as something to me. Also, what other book goes right back to Eden, and even gives lifespans, children, and dates!

quote:

---

...you will claim as many 'mirages' as it takes.

---

No, I want the real mcoy.

quote:

---

you're trying to rework an evolutionary viewpoint into creationism, and failing to match to evidence.

---

Evolutionary means long time periods. This is not at all what I am trying to do.

quote:

---

we have mammalian skeletons found in the same place and geological time as dinosaur skeletons.

---

OK, so "We do not find fossils of marine mammals in the layers where we find marine dinosaurs. Never. Nyet. Nada. Nowhere.
And we never find marine dinosaurs in the layers with marine mammals. Never. Nyet. Nada. Nowhere." (post 76 in fossil sorting in the great flood 2- by 'jar') must be wrong. Fine with me, I'll take your word on the evo doctrine as more pure, for now, till the next evo comes up with some other doser!

quote:

---

he ugaritic, babylonian, and sumerian mythologiest

---

So they go right to Adam, with lifespans, and geneologies? Yet your net words are that the dates don't line up. Nothing else gives us the years right back to eden!

quote:

---

i believe the untouched one is generally an argument for the bible, which history shows to be a bald-faced lie

---

You miss the point entirely, it is because, and only beacause the bible is toched that it has value! Touched by God!

quote:

---

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 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? How did God make fish? Millions of each species all at once? And also all over the world? I don't think we know for sure. He didn't make man that way, for sure! Now as far as Adam's teeth, or shark's teeth, again, back then, we don't really know!

quote:

---

However, we never find anything linked to modern species such as sharks in the cambrian layer. Why is that?

---

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.

quote:

---

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

---

Certainly is, it objects to God's creation!

quote:

---

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

---

So do bible predictions, yet they shun those!

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.

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!?

quote:

---

If you don't understand the evidence supporting evolution, how do you know that it is wrong?

---

Well, as far as evo tales go, the last evo sounded convincing that this first guy was wrong. Me? I think I already stated my position. There were mammals, no doubt about it. Apparently, if your fossil record is as complete as you think it is, they were localized, so not in the layer in question.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.
Granny had a little plan, she put in on the shelf. All the creatures everywhere, they made their little self!

quote:

---

Both statements are true - there were mammals alive at the time of the dinosaurs; no marine mammals were alive during the time of the dinosaurs.

---

OK. That makes sense from an evo standpoint. Thanks. I just had a funny thought on this matter, but I'll leave it for now, as it is not cambrian centered.

quote:

---

Both statements are true - there were mammals alive at the time of the dinosaurs; no marine mammals were alive during the time of the dinosaurs.

---

OK. That makes sense from an evo standpoint. Thanks. I just had a funny thought on this matter, but I'll leave it for now, as it is not cambrian centered.

Well, as far as the cambrian issue at hand, I think that the model I proposed fits real well with the evidence, and the bible, more than I can say for yours. But it seems people are so on the defensive over there in evo land, that no one has raised any serious challenges. Very interesting.

quote:

---

It seems that one serious challenge is that you have no evidence for your model. You just say that the evidence for it hasn't been found.

---

The evidence in question is the cambrian layer, and the 2 interpretations of it, my suggestion, that it is a death record, and evos, which would like to envision no creator, and long ages. As far as humans being found, there, and possibly all Eden's 'ark' full of long lived creatures, I doubt you'll find much of that. I don't have to, I don't expect it, as don't you globally here in the cambrian.

quote:

---

might be that it doesn't explain what we do have

---

Might be. shoula coulda woulda. It expains it I think, far better than the old world veiw. Don't worry, I get dizzy trying to keep up on a thread or two, I don't expect you, who have to check out so many could pay much attention.

quote:

---

I'll also point out that Loudmouth's hypothesis, that there were no mammals in the Cambrian, can be falsified: find the remains of a mammal that date to the Cambrian. That is (in part) what makes it science.How would one falsify the notion that mammals existed but were "concentrated"?

---

Why, if we had been finding them like mad, all over in the cambrian, or even a little, I suppose that would have done it. But it hasn't been falsified now has it?

quote:

---

evolutionary" means dealing with evolution. and contrary to popular belief, doesn't imply the slightest thing about time scales.prove it. prove that everything that has ever happened to the bible was explicitly under the personal direction of god, and not allowing for human error.

---

He knows we make errors, don't worry. Nevertheless, He can still work perfectly well around this, in spite of anything we could throw at Him.

quote:

---

the dates don't line up with your reading of genesis was what i was trying to say.

---

So these pagan(?) writers of yours don't have dates that check out with His? How about Adam, do they at least get that much?

quote:

---

marine mammals are fairly recent. they show evidence of having adapted from land mammals.

---

Would whales be in this category?

quote:

---

a time in which small rodent-like mammals existed, yes. these were the ancestors of marine mammals,

---

So does this mean granny tells us that whales came from little rodents? Perhaps you are reading a little to much into finding some little teeth!!!

quote:

---

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

---

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.

quote:

---

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

---

As is that they were localised, and long lived. 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.

quote:

---

No, it objectively falsifies a literal interpretation of Genesis

---

No one seems to have much to falsify anything in this thread! Genesis remains unfalsified. You get too zealous in your beliefs.

quote:

---

You are the one trying to make evolution deny God

---

I'm talking about Jesus, here, and His talking about the flood, His book, His creation of all things. Now, as far as some 'god' who is different than the bible's one, that is something else.

quote:

---

What are the Bible's prediction on the order of fossils in the fossil record?

---

Predictions of the bible? The entire life, year of birth, town of birth, manner of death, betrayal price, even how they would gamble after He died for His garment! And much more, all to a t. Every world power of the biblically ranked major ones told of in advance, sometimes by name. And much much more. Fossils? He is a God of the living!! Indirectly, we have enough clues in the bible, though to get a pretty good idea.

quote:

---

pseudogenes ...

---

"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.About 97% of the human genome has been designated "junk." .." Much guesswork, evo assumptions. Junk, all right.

quote:

---

All you have to do is run a PCR to find the shared pseudogenes between chimps and humans.

---

What gets me, is you are likely serious! Well, they have hair too! Possibly so does an elephant's rear! They have teeth, so do we-hey! So God usied building blocks that were not completely different for different lifeforms, whopee!

quote:

---

altavistic ..

---

"The author of the above article denies that the vestigial pelvic bones in modern day whales (which are also found in other cetaceans like dolphins and porpoises) is a vestigial pelvis. He writes: "They [evolutionists] believe this even though these strips of bone have a known function [to anchor the male reproductive organ], differ in males and females, and are not even attached to the vertebral column.." (Edward T. Babinski - Cetacean Evolution)
So, apparently your take is not the only one, just the evo one! Anyhow, what if whales used to use these thingies for more than sex, and they would feed on some trilobites or something in shallow water, and had to make like an eel once in a while and slink walk over shallow water for a feed! Anyone can come up with this evo vestigal fantasy!

quote:

---

Buffalo are modern aren't they? Where are they in the cambrian fossil record?

---

Come on now, we covered that.

quote:

---

Where are their fossils and shed teeth?

---

You really have a hard time with this teeth thing. I think it's safe to say there were not teeth dropping from the sky and in the seas, the way you think they oughta. [quote]You claim that mammals were concentrated WITHOUT EVIDENCE.{/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!

quote:

---

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.

---

You are! Me too! I speculate with God,s book, you against it, or at least without it.

You either accept the fountains of the deep, or not, and the water that was therefore under there, according to the written record. Since you outlaw the bible as evidence, you would have to show why there could not have been water under there, contrary to God's opinion. The question then is how much? I think it is safe to say that there was less seas and oceans then, than now! How can you prove you just breathed out in the last 15 minutes? How can you prove you emptied your bladder in the last three days? How can you prove there was no water under there?
Would you at least concede that the explanation put forth here fit the bible's version of events? Then, if you don't think that is right, and the fossils could not be a record of creation cambrian death, then why not?

I'll go with, mostly the ones we find in the record. Why, which ones do you think? Is there a point? Or does it give you a rush just to feel you made a post you think people are marveling over?

quote:

---

granite simply doesn't float, and the pressure of it's weight as well as the heat from the mantle would easily boil the water away very quickly. what would come out would not be water, but water vapor.

---

This is a whole topic in itself. Quickly, lets see what we got. "Earth standing out of the water, and in the water.." (bible). Do we know what that means, really? No. What if it was like the earth, say, was sitting on pillars, under which were water? In ten thousand places, in the cambrian era, say there were sort of bogs, or wetland areas, ehwere somehow up rose this mist each day, supplied from below? There are likely a large number of scenarios where this could be explained. You don't have to go evo on this stuff. Hey, you mentioned "vapor" theat sounds a little like mist!

quote:

---

one of the models suggested for the origin of our oceans is something very similar, although not as abrupt

---

And herein lies the fatal flaw in these other models you mention. ..time.

quote:

---

since the earth is a closed system ....

---

Again, a topic in itself. Not so closed, apparently that we are not affected by things cosmic. The thinking on your side here would have to rest on no God, who could take water in or off the planet, should it be needed, and, that our limited knowledge of the inside of the earth was really totally accurate.

quote:

---

this is why he's described figuratively of conquering the ancient serpent leviathan, who was an ugaritic god of the sea, a sea dragon

---

Nice try at bible interpretation. I wouldn't quit my day job! By the way, it is felt widely that the sea dinosaurs, and such of Job were real. Again a whole topic, though.

quote:

---

so, now that that's explained, what about the FIRST flood? before there was land?

---

You could look at it that way, I suppose. But it is of no consequence to the cambrian life, if it was a day or two before life was created!

quote:

---

the cambrian death isn't especially phenominal.

---

It clearly shows, I would contend, that all this variety of created life, was indeed created, not evoluted, since it all got here at 'once'.

quote:

---

What is in the record that you would say died out during the Cambrian Period? (jar)

---

Largely the record we have in the cambrian.

quote:

---

yes. whales did come from small rodent-like mammals

---

Ladies and gentlemen, the evo case in a nut shell!

quote:

---

have you ever seen prehistoric whale skeleton?

---

I'm glad you're happy with your dead creature parts. I know that history goes back, as a matter of record, right to Eden, and creation. Therefore there is no prehistoric, except in the imagination of some people!

quote:

---

explain the how the omnipotence of god doesn't conflict with the free will of humans?

---

This would take too long for this thread. By the way god is not omnipotent! God is!

quote:

---

The stunning part is, at least for you, is that we only find the teeth in the same strata that we find megalodon.

---

Not as stunning as you might think. I would look at which layer (s) this big sharks teeth were found. I would come up with a scenario, then see if it could be disproved. 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. Then, I would have to ask, was this the first, or one of the first sharks that did start shedding teeth? Then we find where it fits in the puzzle, rather than tooth tea leaf reading.

quote:

---

Your argment is that they were concentrated, so it is up to you to show concentrated mammal fossils in cambrian strata

---

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!

quote:

---

I claim that DNA's properties were so different on that day that it is impossible to use it as evidence.

---

DNA from blood samples is one thing. No one said a thing about this. The point I touched on, in passing was the things God used to make creatures were seemingly similar in some instances. A Ford, and a model airplane both may have wheels. A cricket and a baby both may have eyes. A whale, and a chimp may have blood. A monkey and a man may have belly buttons. It's all in how you mix the goop!

quote:

---

What evidence led Walt Brown to believe that 1/2 of the water ..

---

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.

quote:

---

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

---

Not if mammals were not globally spread, and/or had lifespans longer than other little cambrian creations, that passed away.

quote:

---

You have also yet to show that Jesus was not talking metaphorically as he often did.

---

"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." Mt 24:37-39 He's talking about 2 real times here. The days of Noah, and the time now, just before His return. Nothing spooky about it, just descriptive.

quote:

---

Was that the same whale that swallowed Jonah?

---

I can assure you, the 'whale' that swollowed Jonah did not have parents who were little rhodents!! You just brought up a shark twice as big as todays, imagine a whale twice as big! Also, there was a huge fossil in northern British Columbia, I read about several years ago that was found. I think they say it was a sort of reptile/fish sort of thing. Anyhow it was far bigger than any of today's whales.

quote:

---

Isn't that the point, that theories are correct if they match the evidence?

---

In addition to all the evidence this model matches so well, here is another evidential whopper that leaves the evos in the dust! Now, if something did come into place that drastically reduced lifespans, or caused them to begin to die, etc. would it leave any evidence? Even if this was a result of the split I mentioned (especially in the other thread about the speed of light)- would some atomic level trace possibly be found? 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!!!!!!!!!! This is so noticeable globally, that I believe it is even used at times to mark the layer! This is a source of mystery, I think to evos. Yet, I think the attempt is made to use this very thing for dating! Why, says they, things must always have been the way they are now, so at the rate these isotopes appear to be behaving now, why, it must have been millions of years ago when it stsrted! Things always, however were not the way they now are! Something happened. Something cosmicly huge, and all affecting here in the physical world! Something that triggered the cambrian death explosion as a result!!!!!!! Reminds me of what someone once said -"a lot of what we find, depends on what we are looking for"!
Now if you want 'stunning' try that on for size!