cambrian death cause

There is still a question pending from Message 41.Can you tell us what critters died off during the Cambrian Period?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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?

According to logic, the weight of proof always falls on the side that claims the positive. In this case, you would have to show at least some evidence there could have been water there.Here is a simplified version of what I just stated just in case we have some kind of misunderstanding in communication. Say that I make this claim: There are green goblins running around my house. If you are a skeptic like myself or a good scientist, you would then kindly ask me to provide evidence that there are really green goblins in my house. Assuming that my claim is true, I probably have 2 options: (1) to bring you into my house and show you a green goblin or (2) capture one and bring it to you. Here is the important part. Wouldn't you doubt me if I tell you to disprove to me that there aren't any green goblin?Also, please tell us how you know god's opinion? We know for a fact that a human beings cannot survive 15 minutes without breathing. I had my physical 8 months ago, and the doctor confirmed that I was a human being. That is simple. There are traces of my urine in sticking to the inside of the toilet. It has been a while since I cleaned it. If needed, I can have a sample sent to a lab that will confirm it is from my bladder. Again, the weight of proof falls on the side that claims the positive. In other words, we don't have to prove to you that there was no water under there. You are suppose to prove it to us. No. Insufficient evidence for such a hypothesis.

---

The Laminator

​

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

arkathon It does not matter whether or not I do believe. My point was you give a numerical fraction to something you do not know the existence of. Are we talking 1/2 of a gallon or 1 billion gallons or what? You cannot make the claim of 1/2 if you do not know how much the whole amounts to. Because my wife informs me that I have left the lid up.P.S. Iwill finish up on this post tomorrow as I am finding it hard to concetrate. I need SLEEP.

explain the how the omnipotence of god doesn't conflict with the free will of humans? or are you contending that we don't have free will? that is the neccessary prerequisite for claiming the bible to be perfect.go read my apocrypha thread, and participate. well, no, you see, "HIS" book was written at a later date than the "pagan" writers. so maybe it means that "HIS" dates don't check out? it stands to reason that the most accurate description of an event would be the record closest to the actual date, right?adam might be borrowed from the first recorded king of sumeria. yes. and don't pull that standard whale skeleton vestigal crap. we've all read it before. out of curiousity, have you ever seen prehistoric whale skeleton? i have. quite an interesting experience. i actually have a vertebrae from one, and piece of a rib. perhaps you don't know the first thing about paleontology. a tooth is probably the most informative singl thing you can find. it tells you the approx. size, weight, and age of the animal, as well as hinting (often strongly) at the species, and fully divulges exactly what it ate.and yes. whales did come from small rodent-like mammals. ALL mammals did. these small rodent-like mammals came from reptiles before that. (we have some rather interesting transitional forms...)

ok, firstly, i did that. 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.suprisingly, there is a little validity to the model, that people seem to be ignoring. one of the models suggested for the origin of our oceans is something very similar, although not as abrupt. h2o is often a chemical result of earth's natural processes. over time, volcanic eruptions would have released enough water vapor to cool, condense, and form liquid oceans. the only competing theory is the water-from-comets idea.however, even in this case, there was no "pocket" of water. and walt's idea forms a bit of a logical problem. since the earth is a closed system, the amount of water that we have is constant. if there existed enough water on this planet to cover its entire surface, we'd all have gills. where did the water go afterwards? back into the earth? it just doesn't add up. simple calculation taking into account the weight of crustal plates, the fact tha granite still doesn't float, the current amount of water on the planet, and the heat generated by the planet.how do you prove there was? nope. genesis 7 says fountains of the deep, sure. but not the deep EARTH. the word is clearly referring to the sea. it's figurative of the waters of creation in genesis 1:2. the idea is that sea is chaotic and destructive, and god creates order (land) from that chaos. this is why he's described figuratively of conquering the ancient serpent leviathan, who was an ugaritic god of the sea, a sea dragon. it's symbolic of re-creation, as if god is starting over, going back to the first bit of genesis.so, now that that's explained, what about the FIRST flood? before there was land? the cambrian death isn't especially phenominal. all the great periods of earth's geologic history are delineated by major deaths of biological organisms.what's more impressive is the cambrian explosion.

quote:

---

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.

---

What evidence led Walt Brown to believe that 1/2 of the water came up from the fountains of the deep? What evidence led him to believe that there were fountains of the deep?

quote:

---

As is that they were localised, and long lived.

---

What evidence led you to this conclusion?

quote:

---

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.

---

Let's take your argument to an extreme. Let's say that I am accused of murdering someone. There was a struggle, and in this struggle the knife that killed the victim also happened to scratch the culprit. Through DNA fornesics, they find both my blood and the victims on the blade. However, using you logic I can get off. All I have to do is claim that DNA functioned differently on that day. I claim that DNA's properties were so different on that day that it is impossible to use it as evidence. Bingo, I get off since they are not able to prove me wrong.Let's take a second look. EVERY shark today sheds it's teeth. Also, there is evidence that pre-historic sharks also shed there teeth. One of the best examples is the species C. megalodon. This shark was over 40 feet long, twice the size of the largest shark today, the Great White. We find it's fossilized teeth washed up on shore and in the fossil record. The stunning part is, at least for you, is that we only find the teeth in the same strata that we find megalodon. And again, every shark today sheds its teeth. I have positive evidence that sharks have always shed their teeth, what evidence do you have that they didn't?Secondly, I am not arguing against the fact that things died and were fossilized during the cambrian. I am arguing that everything died and was buried in the cambrian which means if there were mammals around then they should have been fossilized as well. Your argment is that they were concentrated, so it is up to you to show concentrated mammal fossils in cambrian strata. I can't argue against a point that is not supported by positive evidence. Right now I am arguing against the fantasies in your head which is a little difficult since I can't objectively test other people's fantasies.

quote:

---

No one seems to have much to falsify anything in this thread! Genesis remains unfalsified

---

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

quote:

---

I'm talking about Jesus, here, and His talking about the flood, His book, His creation of all things.

---

And you have yet to show that he was correct with regard to the actual natural history of the earth. You have also yet to show that Jesus was not talking metaphorically as he often did.

quote:

---

Fossils? He is a God of the living!! Indirectly, we have enough clues in the bible, though to get a pretty good idea.

---

Chapter and verse please. I want the indirect clues that would lead us to believe that mammals were concentrated and that they shouldn't be in the cambrian deposits. I also want the indirect clues for sharks not shedding their teeth.

quote:

---

"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.

---

All the above is indeed what is hypothesized for the sequences of non-transcribed DNA. This is best dealt with in another thread. For now let's focus on why we don't see modern species in the cambrian. Sorry for dragging things off topic.

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!

---

Was that the same whale that swallowed Jonah? At least the theory that we construct is consistent with the evidence while your pseudo-theory is not. Isn't that the point, that theories are correct if they match the evidence?

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!

Still having problem with simple questions are you?What do you believe died off during the Cambrian Age?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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!

I found this;"Megalodon was an ancient shark that may have been 40 feet (12 m) long or even more. (There are a few scientists who estimate that it could have been up to 50 or 100 feet (15.5 or 31 m) long!) This is at least two or three times as long as the Great White Shark, but this is only an estimate made from many fossilized teeth and a few fossilized vertebrae that have been found. These giant teeth are the size of a person's hand! No other parts of this ancient shark have been found, so we can only guess what it looked like."Since the picture actually showed a big great white, I think many creos would argue that's what it was.Also, I think that the argument then, is that it would fit the degenerative picture for white sharks, as in a world which was made "good" - it would have been bigger cos it would have done better.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-15-2004 06:29 PM

quote:

---

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.

---

Since you know which layers are from the flood and the exact mechanisms that caused fossil sorting you should already know which strata it is in. Care to make a prediction.Also, read this article. The oldest shark teeth found now have a shark fossil to go with them. It seems that even the oldest sharks were shedding their teeth. Again, why aren't there shed shark teeth in the cambrian, and what evidence led you to your conclusions? And secondly, what evidence could potentially falsify your position?

quote:

---

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!

---

So you are saying that we should find mammals in the cambrian strata. Where are they? Oh, buried where we will never find them. How very convenient for you. Guess what, my UFO's are buried right next to them, along with Jimmy Hoffa. Again, you are creating theories WITH NO POSITIVE PROOF. Hence, there is no model to be intact to begin with. I freely admit that evolution would be destroyed if mammals were found in cambrian strata, hence I am not as dogmatic or blinded by faith as you are. What would falsify your position that mammals were concentrated?

quote:

---

DNA from blood samples is one thing. No one said a thing about this.

---

What you are claiming is that observations today do not apply to the past. For instance, all sharks shed their teeth today. You say this shouldn't apply since we weren't there to witness it. I say that DNA acted differently on the second Tuesday in March. Since no one looked at my DNA on the second Tuesday in March, I am right until someone proves me wrong. I am using the same logic as you.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, your theory relies on miracles. Thanks for cluing me in. Why do you then demand physical evidence from evolutionists when you don't even hold yourself to the same criteria?

quote:

---

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."

---

Let me use an analogy:Just as the tortoise beat the hare, so shall the steady of spirit beat the swift.Does that mean the tortoise and the hare really had a race as depicted in Aesop's Fables?Jesus is using the fable of Noah to illustrate a point.

quote:

---

can assure you, the 'whale' that swollowed Jonah did not have parents who were little rhodents!!

---

I was just inserting some humor to lighten the mood. Hope you got a chuckle out of it like I did.

quote:

---

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!!!!!!!!!!

---

What is the mechanism that ties C13 and reduced lifspans, etc.? You are really grasping at straws now. "IT WAS THE C13!!!". How about this, you give me positive evidence that mammals were around the same time as trilobites. Care to take me up on the challenge?

You know, it seems when you actually make a statment that is clear enough to be checked it turns out you are wrong.Please see:Rolex.org - Rolex AwardsSince the blue whale has reached 30 meters this icthyosaur falls a fair bit short. It is about the size of the larger whales of today but not bigger than the largest.Meanwhile if you want to be clear enough perhaps you can describe what you think transpired before, during and after the cambrian.You keep suggesting that living things of one sort or another were geographically restricted.Do you meant that all life other than microbes was restricted for a long time, then things like trilobite spread over the globe? Then fish did, then amphibians, then reptiles etc.And in each case none of these were current species. Care to explain why that is?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-15-2004 07:12 PM