Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 76 of 232 (124158)
07-13-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Loudmouth
07-12-2004 12:56 PM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
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.htm
The 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Loudmouth, posted 07-12-2004 12:56 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 07-13-2004 1:22 AM simple has replied
 Message 80 by Loudmouth, posted 07-13-2004 12:58 PM simple has replied

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


Message 77 of 232 (124161)
07-13-2004 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by simple
07-13-2004 12:53 AM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
The so called support evolution found is based on belief.
you think if you repeat it enough times, it'll magically become true? evolution lines up with evidence. creation does not. this thread is very good proof of that. you're trying to rework an evolutionary viewpoint into creationism, and failing to match to evidence.
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!.
we have mammalian skeletons found in the same place and geological time as dinosaur skeletons. they were abundant in the late cretacious. it's not a theory -- it's observed evidence.
Also, what other book goes right back to Eden, and even gives lifespans, children, and dates!
the ugaritic, babylonian, and sumerian mythologies the hebrews borrowed from. although the names, dates, genealogies, etc, tend to not line up.
the only difference is the lifespan of the bible. people kept adding to the library of books, whereas the epic of gilgamesh stay relatively untouched. (which do you think is more reliable? something people have messed with for thousands of years, or something left untouched? i believe the untouched one is generally an argument for the bible, which history shows to be a bald-faced lie)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by simple, posted 07-13-2004 12:53 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by 1.61803, posted 07-13-2004 1:43 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 84 by simple, posted 07-14-2004 3:19 AM arachnophilia has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 78 of 232 (124163)
07-13-2004 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by arachnophilia
07-13-2004 1:22 AM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
I have recently watched a fundlementalist preacher explain that the devil in order to prevent the birth of Jesus had demons mate with the daughters of cain to give rise to a new demon/man race in the hopes of diliuting the population of man and destroying all of mankind. They called this the Giants in the old testament. One problem... it is ridiculous. Point is these interpretations are taken seriously by many fundlementalist. Just when I thought I heard it all. Ok now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 07-13-2004 1:22 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by arachnophilia, posted 07-13-2004 2:08 AM 1.61803 has replied

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


Message 79 of 232 (124168)
07-13-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by 1.61803
07-13-2004 1:43 AM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
hed, don't ask me it, it's in genesis 6. and the book of enoch.
and, uhh, i wouldn't say the devil did it, nor demons. it says that angels did it, out of their own volition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by 1.61803, posted 07-13-2004 1:43 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by 1.61803, posted 07-13-2004 7:09 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 232 (124229)
07-13-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by simple
07-13-2004 12:53 AM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
quote:
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?).
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 my scenario of more of everything is true, then there should be numerous shed shark teeth in the same layers as cambrian life. However, we never find anything linked to modern species such as sharks in the cambrian layer. Why is that?
quote:
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.
Without a recorded census, I agree. However, I think we can both agree that there is no physical or natural law that requires population growth rates to stay the same from the inception of a species (be it creation or evolution).
quote:
The so called support evolution found is based on belief.
Au contraire, mon frere. The evidence supporting evolution is objective in nature. The evidence is available to everyone regardless of religious affiliation or world view. It is repeatable and verifiable. The reason mainstream science relies on the theory of evolution is that it's PREDICTIONS always come true. This applies to the sequencing of new genomes and newly discovered fossil species. You might have already heard about it, but TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy is a great website that discusses the scientific evidence in a way that is accessible to common person. A little knowledge in biology and geology is needed, but it is easier reading than the primary literature. For a quick run down of about 30 peices of evidence that support Macroevolution, go here. Unless you can refute the mountains of evidence at this site you are not able to claim that evolution is based only on belief. It is based on objective evidence and fulfilled predictions.
quote:
quote:
How about a more realistic interpretation, there wasn't a whole lot of life in the pre-cambrian period.
  —Loudmouth
Compared with the way they were dropping off in the cambrian, the evo oriented might almost think so!
Is there any evidence that falsifies the view that the cambrian fossil record is an accurate portrayal of the species diversity of that period? Again, you seem to be jumping to a conclusion without the benefit of evidence. Please show me the evidence that evidences modern species living during the Cambrian.
quote:
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!.
If you don't understand the evidence supporting evolution, how do you know that it is wrong? Do you think it is wrong because of the evidence (of which you admittedly know very little about) or because it conflicts with your interpretation of Genesis? I am guessing the latter.
quote:
Millions of healings, miracles, answered prayers, fullfilled prophesies, and such count as something to me.
How about millions of christians dying of painful diseases, unanswered prayer, and not one prophesy that is specific enough to apply to one event or one prophesy that is supported by extra-biblical evidence. If you do a search, there are a couple threads open for discussion on fulfilled prophesy. Not one person yet has shown a prophesy that fulfills the following criteria:
1. Specific: The prophesy can only apply to one event. A prophesy claiming "wars and rumors of war" for instance is much to vague and could apply to every century since the death of Jesus.
2. Extra-biblical evidence: The prophesy fulfillment must be corroborated by non-biblical evidence. The bible fulfilling it's own prophecies does not count since authors could have retold events in a way that would fulfill the prophecies but not accurately portray real events.
quote:
No, I want the real mcoy.
So do we. 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. You have yet to show that sin caused the deterioration of DNA and morphology. Need I go on? On the other hand, there is another theory that explains the fossil record AND is supported by physical, objective evidence. Need I tell you what that theory is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by simple, posted 07-13-2004 12:53 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by simple, posted 07-14-2004 3:48 AM Loudmouth has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 81 of 232 (124284)
07-13-2004 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by arachnophilia
07-13-2004 2:08 AM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
Caution!!!!way off topic!!!! According to Preacher Hagee of San Antonio, actually his son Matthew. The angels were fallen angels who were loyal to Satan. Hence demons. But my only point was that all of the text in the bible is subject to this sort of interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by arachnophilia, posted 07-13-2004 2:08 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 07-13-2004 8:14 PM 1.61803 has not replied

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


Message 82 of 232 (124296)
07-13-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by 1.61803
07-13-2004 7:09 PM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
Not if you wander over to Message 1. It will be right on target there.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by 1.61803, posted 07-13-2004 7:09 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by arachnophilia, posted 07-13-2004 10:39 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 83 of 232 (124315)
07-13-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
07-13-2004 8:14 PM


Re: Cambrian creation life cut short
woohoo thread publicity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 07-13-2004 8:14 PM jar has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 232 (124390)
07-14-2004 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by arachnophilia
07-13-2004 1:22 AM


evo purest accepted! for now!
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 07-13-2004 1:22 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 07-14-2004 3:47 AM simple has replied
 Message 93 by arachnophilia, posted 07-14-2004 6:18 AM simple has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 232 (124393)
07-14-2004 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by simple
07-14-2004 3:19 AM


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.
No, that's still a true statement. No marine mammals are found in layers with marine dinosaurs.
Mammals existed during the time of the dinosaurs, sure, but there were no marine mammals at that time.
Get it, yet? 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by simple, posted 07-14-2004 3:19 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by simple, posted 07-14-2004 3:58 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 88 by simple, posted 07-14-2004 3:59 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 92 by arachnophilia, posted 07-14-2004 6:06 AM crashfrog has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 232 (124394)
07-14-2004 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Loudmouth
07-13-2004 12:58 PM


granny had a plan
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Loudmouth, posted 07-13-2004 12:58 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Loudmouth, posted 07-14-2004 3:23 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 232 (124397)
07-14-2004 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
07-14-2004 3:47 AM


defending the faith
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 07-14-2004 3:47 AM crashfrog has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 232 (124399)
07-14-2004 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
07-14-2004 3:47 AM


defending the faith
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 07-14-2004 3:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 07-14-2004 4:12 AM simple has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 232 (124400)
07-14-2004 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by simple
07-14-2004 3:59 AM


That makes sense from an evo standpoint.
As well as from an evidentiary standpoint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by simple, posted 07-14-2004 3:59 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by simple, posted 07-14-2004 4:25 AM crashfrog has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 232 (124404)
07-14-2004 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
07-14-2004 4:12 AM


arky amused
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 07-14-2004 4:12 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2004 4:48 AM 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