cambrian death cause

Could you summarize your model for the cambrian and pre cambrian times again? I've lost track of what you're suggesting.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 other challenge might be that it doesn't explain what we do have but I don't remember you spelling it out in enough detail to determine that.

nope, STILL not true. there's no such thing as a marine dinosaur. all dinosaurs are land dwellers. the dinosaur-looking things in the ocean were aquatic reptiles, and the ones in the air were flying reptiles. dinosaurs, in the strictest sense, are not true reptiles.

"evolutionary" means dealing with evolution. and contrary to popular belief, doesn't imply the slightest thing about time scales. what you are doing is trying to fit a standard evolutionary and paleontological mechanism -- mass extinction -- into a creationist framework. why not just ignore it, and go with "god sorted it all out by miracle, in order to decieve us?" that's a more logical view point. marine mammals are fairly recent. they show evidence of having adapted from land mammals. marine reptiles existed at a time in which small rodent-like mammals existed, yes. these were the ancestors of marine mammals, which didn't exist until at least 10 million years later.however, jar is still wrong, on a technicality. there's no such thing as marine dinosaurs. only marine reptiles. just a classification thing, really. the dates don't line up with your reading of genesis was what i was trying to say. 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.then go take a look at my apocrypha thread.

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?

---

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

quote:

---

How did God make fish? Millions of each species all at once?

---

What evidence led you to the conclusion that God made any fish in the manner you are portraying?

quote:

---

He didn't make man that way, for sure!

---

What evidence led you to this conclusion?

quote:

---

Now as far as Adam's teeth, or shark's teeth, again, back then, we don't really know!

---

What evidence led you to the conclusion that it was any different then that it is now?

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.

---

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

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

Certainly is, it objects to God's creation!

---

No, it objectively falsifies a literal interpretation of Genesis as a scientifically accurate model of earth's history. You are the one trying to make evolution deny God, not science.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

So do bible predictions, yet they shun those!

---

Oh really!? What are the Bible's prediction on the order of fossils in the fossil record? Chapter and verse please. What are the predictions of DNA similarities including pseudogenes and HERV's found in the Bible? Chapter and verse please. Science makes SPECIFIC predictions about the natural world, bible prophecies make vague predictions about world events that are either to vague to apply to one event in particular or are only fulfilled within the bible with no extra-biblical evidence to support them.

quote:

---

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.

---

All you have to do is run a PCR to find the shared pseudogenes between chimps and humans. All you have to do is look at the atavistic legs found on whales. The evidence is not speculation, but rather real observations that you can make yourself. These observations were predicted by the theory of evolution. All of these observations support the theory. It is not speculation, but rather objective observations, something you lack in support of your theory. Also, I could call creationist theories "Shiva-less", "Zeus-less", or even "Reincarnation-less" speculations. Science only ignores one more god than you do.

quote:

---

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!?

---

Buffalo are modern aren't they? Where are they in the cambrian fossil record? Dolphins are modern are they not? Where are they in the cambrian? Great White sharks are modern are they not? Where are their fossils and shed teeth?

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.

---

You are the one speculating. You claim that mammals were concentrated WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I claim that mammals were not around during the cambrian, sighting no modern mammal or non-mammalian species in the cambrian layers. You claim that sediment deposition was different in the past. I claim, WITH EVIDENCE, that the same sediment deposition we OBSERVE TODAY is able to explain the fossil layering. 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. Are you going to continue to turn you back on the evidence that God put in the earth for you?

Yeah, I had thought that was the case... oh, well.Is there a catch-all term for prehistoric aquatic reptiles contemporary with dinosaurs?

quote:

---

You are the one speculating. You claim that mammals were concentrated WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I claim that mammals were not around during the cambrian, sighting no modern mammal or non-mammalian species in the cambrian layers.

---

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"?

Yeah, " marine dinosaurs" or " prehistoric aquatic reptiles"

quote:

---

Is there a catch-all term for prehistoric aquatic reptiles contemporary with dinosaurs?

---

Yes: "prehistoric aquatic reptiles contemporary with dinosaurs".(Ooh, bad bat!)Actually, there isn't a single term. There are several lineages of aquatic reptile, even ignoring the "boring" ones like turtles.Edited to add: Bah! 1.6 beat me to the lame joke!This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-14-2004 03:32 PM

Having studied fossils in a quarry with Cambrian rocks, the only thing we found were Trilobites..

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.

arkathon And where did old walt say he found the waters of the deep? This would be vital evidence in the line of reasoning you give about the amount{1/2} that came from them. You cannot make a numerical proposition about that which you have no idea of.

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?