|
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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: cambrian death cause | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:"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: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:The so called support evolution found is based on belief. quote:Compared with the way they were dropping off in the cambrian, the evo oriented might almost think so! quote: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: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: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:No, I want the real mcoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
woohoo thread publicity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Evolutionary means long time periods. This is not at all what I am trying to do. quote: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: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:You miss the point entirely, it is because, and only beacause the bible is toched that it has value! Touched by God!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: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: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:Certainly is, it objects to God's creation! quote:So do bible predictions, yet they shun those! quote:Yes I am. I saw no evidence there at all! Godless speculation. quote:It could well be, in most of the earth, what you call 'modern ones' were not!? quote: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: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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That makes sense from an evo standpoint. As well as from an evidentiary standpoint.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024