cambrian death cause

actually, that seems to be the flaw in YOUR model. not only does an abrupt change not make any sense, every evidence points to an earth much, much older than 6000 years. where did the water go then? hmm? you jsut claimed it was a miracle. more or less. as long as we're on the same page here, you're basically saying that this whole bit is basically a religious belief. you've uhh, never read the bible, have you? and i think i had a topic on this, but lets take a look at job's leviathan.

quote:

---

Job 41:15 [His] scales [are his] pride, shut up together [as with] a close seal.
Job 41:16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

---

no dinosaur skin imprint ever found has had that type of scale. they appear to have had more lizard-like skin.

quote:

---

Job 41:19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, [and] sparks of fire leap out.
Job 41:20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as [out] of a seething pot or caldron.
Job 41:21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

---

dinosaurs show no evidence of breathing fire. no animal ever found has, although a few lizards do nasty things like squirt poison out of their eyes.

quote:

---

Psa 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

---

heads. plural. dinosaurs, and every other living creature except certain conjoined twins, have only one head. in ugaritic lore, i think he had 7 heads.so no. not talking about a dinosaur. people who espouse this view just haven't read the bible carefully enough. it's talking about something greater, and the symbolic interpretation i presented is the standard, scholarly viewpoint. i don't make this stuff up. please clarify. was it a day? or two days? or no days? how carefully are you reading? god flies over the waters. then he creates light. and then he creates dark. and then the evening and the morning were the first day, which means the "let there be light" part was before the first day, because dark had not been defined yet.how long a time was that? can you say? a day? two days? three? a week? lemme know what you come up with. no, it showed that a bunch of things all died around the same time. so does the ordivician extinction above it. and the silurian, devonian, mississippian, pennsylvanian, permian, triassic, jurassic, cretaceous and tertiary extinctions. some were bigger than others. the jurassic wasn't that big of a deal, but the cretaceous whiped out most of the life on the planet.what's the big deal about the cambrian one? which is? pop quiz, what was alive in the cambrian period? what did the extinction kill off? what survived? do you even know?

i wasn't aware of any examples of megaladon, other than teeth. sharks don't fossilize very well, because the cartilidge rots too quickly. but the teeth and jaws are bone, so those get preserved sometimes. but all i've seen of megaladon is the teeth, and jaw reconstructions based on the great white.there was actually debate for some time as to whether it was a big shark, or just a small with disproportionately large teeth.

you are aware that it was no bigger than the biggest shark still alive today, right? fish do get large even today, you know. we've found no such thing, though. and if we did, it would certainly be an aberation, as the rest of the geologic column is in perfect order with evolutionary theory.and some people of the time genesis was written thought eden wasn't on earth, but was a level of heaven. just so you know, i didn't make that up. no. evidence. not speculation. evidence to back speculation. some prediction the hydroplate HYPOTHESIS predicts that can be tested or be looked for. in the second instance, they'd still leave evidence of their existance. a lot of stuff we know about dinosaurs comes from their footprints. why no mammal footprints in cambrian strata?and as far as not globally spread... well. things still spread out to occupy an area. by your thoughts, the cambrian period must have lasted about a day (in the creation days) and have still piled a few hundred feet of soil into rock, while killing more trilobites than it would take to cover the earth's entire landmass. that's a heck of a day. so we're in for another flood, before the second-coming?

quote:

---

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

---

well, i guess god's a liar then, right? jesus goes on to say:

quote:

---

Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:41 Two [women shall be] grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

---

oh, and look, another metaphor right after that!

quote:

---

Mat 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
Mat 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

---

is it possible he's being figurative? like he normally is? no, just this once he HAS to be talking literally....i read my bible. do you? do you ever, you know, think about it? no, especially not since it was a FISH, not a whale. but you seem to have caught that one. good job. actually, the shark was about the same size as another modern shark, which is ironically named the whale shark. so, where's the mystery?btw, you're looking at the wrong end of the cambrian period. that's at the beginning, the boundary between precambrian and cambrian. it coincides nicely with volcanic ash. no mystery here.

at least he's making a prediction.you know, that is if we knew where eden was. any guesses? i've heard everything from iraq, to antarctica, to outer space.

wow.go out and buy a book on the modern shark, and do some reading. the modern great white has 3000 some teeth at any given time. that's a lot more than two rows. it sheds them periodically, but the mechanism is there because teeth break, fall out, and get stuck in prey. it needs as many teeth as possible, and needs to replace them as quickly as possible.in strata that have sharks in them, shark teeth are the single most abundant fossil you can find. hell, i have a BOX of them somewhere. however, they exist only in a certain range, from somewhere in the mesozoic to modern times. saying they are no abundant is the most idiotic thing you could possibly say. it proves, without a doubt, that you've never even attempted to learn anything about paleontology. two? or seven? sorry, couldn't resist. that's not something that's falsifiable. especially if you're of the sect that believes eden was in heaven. for the last time, evolution and the big bang have absolutely nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that creationists equally dispise both for some reason. god made a promise to noah that no matter how bad mankind got, he wouldn't kill us all, again. fine, explain to me how both can be literally true, and we're due for a THIRD flood, and not have god be a liar? you realise that that implication is blasphemy, right? saying that god breaks his promises. ok, i guess you didn't catch it. jonah says it was a fish. not a whale. and i never said rodent. i said rodent-like. all mammals come from small rodent-LIKE animals, including whales. we even have a good number of the transitional forms required. and it didn't happen overnight, it took more than 50 million years.

actually, i did too, in this post in this very thread: http://EvC Forum: cambrian death cause -->EvC Forum: cambrian death causeand more importantly, so does the bible. the word used for deep in genesis 7:11, as in "fountains of the great deep" is the same deep in genesis 1:2 (which i posted in the above link). it's also the same deep as in exodus 15:5, which says what pharoah's army was buried under. i could continue this. that's the problem.

sort of supports our view point, doesn't it?

interesting.

the point was that one of the qualities of being a shark is having multiple rows of teeth, that get shed. um, actually, that would be a "macro-evolutionary change" wouldn't it? going from having a single row of teeth and not sheeding them, to going to multiple rows and shedding them. sorry, either way, you lose. really? it did? book chapter and verse? you haven't answered any of my other verse requests, i don't imagine you'll answer this on either. and everybody who read and followed the book of adam and eve and the book of jubilees probably thought eden was in heaven.even in genesis, when god kicks the two out of the garden, part of the curse is giving adam the barren earth. evolution is change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next in biological organism.the big bang was the event at the beginning of the universe that produced the outwardly-accelerating universe we observe today. this event was long before, and had nothing to do with biology.now, please show me the connection between a biological certainty and an astrophysical hypothesis. the bible says we were made of dust. what's the difference?

quote:

---

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

---

what bible are you reading? no. answer my question, please. i was asking for an explanation of how it can be literally true that god will again destroy all of mankind, especially by a flood which you think that verse seems to be saying, even after god made a covenant with noah to never do such a thing again.it has nothing to do with free will. it has to do with your misreading of a bible verse, versus the words of god himself. no, a fish was a small sea-dweller. and the word is fish. not whale. it says a BIG fish. not an average whale. that would actually make some sense if all we had were whales and mice. no, we got a lot of stuff in between.what's religious doctrine is "there's some magical device that prevents small changes from adding up to big changes"

your assumptions that everything was around at the same time seem to be the bain of your existance.frankly, we ARE up our armpits in fossil shark teeth. like i said, i have a box of them somewhere. want some? the problem is that there are NO shark teeth in the cambrian and precambrian layers. now you're suggesting a creature that's a shark, but doesn't have one of the characteristics that makes it a shark, namely, shedding teeth.this is pure speculation, and contrary to any claims you are making regarding evolution. you need to cut it out with "suppose if" situations that just aren't reality. evenings and mornings. night comes before day.and, uhh, your inability to decimate my biblical claims are the issue. you're founding something on a belief in the bible being literal. therefore, it is of absolute importance to determing what the bible actually says. the bible seems to indicate that the rest of earth is a desert in that verse though. what do you say to that?

quote:

---

evolution is change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next in biological organism.

---

that's the definition. i don't know what you're talking about. do you hear yourself? this going to be a common theme here. you post something in response to me, and then i post back what i wrote because apparently you don't actually read it the first time.

quote:

---

The big bang was the event at the beginning of the universe that produced the outwardly-accelerating universe we observe today. this event was long before, and had nothing to do with biology.

---

i explicitly said they weren't connected. one is physics, one is biology. where's the connection? do tell? contrasting is not correlating.and what in god's name are you talking with granny all the time? do you have some kind of grandmother issue buried in your past? no, i accurately called it what it is. a hypothetical model. it's kind of tricky to observe or test for, but it fits all the evidence. but it says we were made from dust. i've read genesis. all of it. have you? it says we were made from something LOWER than worms, too barren even to be food for worms. hey look, third time i've posted this verse.

quote:

---

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

---

if you believe the words of paul regarding the end of life on earth, then you make god out to be a liar. personally, i don't like paul. i'll go with god. god didn't destroy all of mankind the first time either, did he? you know, people write in these things called paragraphs. mine are short and easy to read. how do you miss this stuff?

quote:

---

no, a fish was a small sea-dweller. and the word is fish. not whale. it says a BIG fish. not an average whale.

---

get that? it was a BIG example of something that was otherwise average-sized. it says "great/old fish" not "whale" do you realized i just said a point of yours would make sense if some condition were true, and then you denied it saying it "makes no sense at all?"seriously, do you even read what other people write, or do you just like to hear yourself spouting one liners and propaganda? go take a biology class, college level, and tell me it's insane. until you've done that, i won't accept random, uninformend, and simply ignorant babble.

here's an example of an uninformed one liner: do you realize a lot of people here actually post evidence? loudmouth does it ALOT. saying it doesn't exist is like me standing outside in the pouring rain and saying clouds don't exist. it's just not true, even you say such witty remarks as "bull."what doesn't have an iota of evidence is your crazy death-ray idea. all you have are suppositions, hypotheticals, and cases that fail to match reality.and then you fail to come through on challenges. you won't even cite the bible for me when i ask. no, the hint wasn't taken. where's the evidence? what's reasonless is asserting that things worked different against all evidence, and would instead produce effects that looked like nothing had changed. yeah. here's a suggestion. enroll in your local community college, and take a intro geology class, an intro astronomy class, and an into biology class. that won't even be one year, it'll be half a year. i bet you'll find it fun, entertaining, and completely shattering to any young-earth creationist anti-evolution beliefs you may have.heck, just ask rubystars here.

if they weren't, then that's a fundamental change in the features -- alleles -- of the creature. it means that the modern shark is morphologically different than the "cambrian shark." suppose such a creature existed relies heavily on "macro" evolution.you can't have both. doesn't matter. there are no shark teeth ANYWHERE in the cambrian and precambrian layers. land, sea, wherever. no, that's your opinion. the only thing the bible says doesn't change is god, and even that's pretty shaky. there's evidence in genesis that god used natural processes to create. i'm sorry -- that's what it says. you're the one making up stuff.

quote:

---

cursed [is] the ground for thy sake.... Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee....

---

etc. so, you deny the basic principles of genetics now, do you? how do you just keep on going denying things that people spend their entire lives studying and observing and experimenting with? maybe it's time for a reality check. duh. so does every other scientific thought. but we don't see you on here debating gravity, or newton's first law. science investigates the natural, not the supernatural. we have religion for that.but that's not a connection. that's like saying britney spears and tax day are related -- because i don't like either of them. interesting. you up on your reading?

quote:

---

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

---

now, where's that from? was that inspired by god, or the devil, would you say?

quote:

---

till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

---

sounds like an insult to man to me. as for insulting to creator, i think creationism is. my god is vast and majestic and eternal. your's has only been around for 6000 years or so, and is confined to this little book that people wrote about it. actually, neither do. evolution happens today, whether or not were were created 6000 years ago. and the big bang... well, the logic actually goes the other way around. everything is speeding away from everything else. we just mapped it back until everything was in one point. the time frame of about 15 billion years was actually drawn from the rates of recession currently observed.as for non-existant time-frames... well, try eternity. you mean people who've been educated in scientific fields? curious, both are rejected by the same people too. i wonder why that is... even though the big bang sounds suspiciously like creationism to me. i shall thank you for the wonderful setup there, but i will have to decline on the joke since it would have been particularly rude. yeah, only unlike creationism, it actually fits and is drawn from the observable evidence. check with amlodhi for the tenses and mood of the verbs there. one indicates a simple action, but one indicates a lengthy process. it doesn't say we were made fully formed. it says we were made from one thing into another through a process. i've never liked paul. his advice i find offensive (see above) and his credentials i don't trust. he said he had a vision. well, so did emporer constantine. and all the roman soldiers put crosses on their shields, and killed in the name of jesus. sound liek something jesus would tell people to do? does the advice i quoted above? remember, jesus said things like "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" and gave women a chance when no one else would.like i said, i'll go with god, not paul. is english your native language?i said a point of yours would make sense if some condition were true, and you said your own point makes no sense at all.

and yet you're opposed to evolution, which is a change in heritable features. you don't see a contradiction in that? the cambrian rocks all look a certain way, no matter if they're horizontal, diagonal, vertical, etc. and they're ALWAYS below ordovician rocks, which look a certain way, and tose are ALWAYS below silurian rocks, which ALWAYS look a certain way, etc. we can tell which rocks are from which period by order and composition, the fossils they contain, relative dating with angular unconformities and the like (which your flood cannot explain), and radiometric dating. everything lines up.so, based on fossils alone? no.

quote:

---

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

---

quote:

---

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

---

there's also a hebrew interpretation in the talmud that we're missing out on. it says the 7 days of creation is how long it took god to tell moses how he made everything, information contained in the qabala. that view explains why we have evenings and mornings before we have the sun. yes, but she doesn't cause tax day, or even make it any worse on me. and biological evolution would be impossible without some event that created the universe, scientific or creationist. a person with a god-given brain. god allows alot of stuff, but that doesn't mean it's good. god allows evil. in fact, god CREATED evil.

quote:

---

Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that [Jesus] sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
Luk 7:38 And stood at his feet behind [him] weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe [them] with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed [them] with the ointment.
Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw [it], he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman [this is] that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

​

[...]

​

Luk 7:44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped [them] with the hairs of her head.
Luk 7:45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luk 7:46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, [the same] loveth little.
Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

---

so, yes, go ahead and condemn an entire gender because you think that's what the bible says. but perhaps you'd do better by actually reading it. yes, proverbs warns against adultery. wow. the point was is that science isn't saying anything one way or another. we're not elvating man, and we're not debasing man. we're analyzing where our place actually is. assuming you are god's most blessed creation, at the center of everything, is pride. and a sin. we do. one more time kids! say it with me: science says nothing about god, at all, ever. one way or the other. we've placed the universe at about 15 billion years at the oldest. compare 15 billion years with ETERNITY. have we done anything past god? or is your god just limited to 6000 years? my god is eternal, and that's ALOT older than 15 billion years. you wanna talk lies? just read anything hovind has written. i'm pretty sure he even KNOWS he's lying. creationist lie all the time, because they have to. their beliefs just don't fit reality.the "lie" believe does. this simple fact has caused a lot of people to reject creationism after taking an introductory bio class, or geology class, etc. see above. does this need a response? any women here care to object? i think the greatest tragedy of this is that it's totally unsupported by any earlier hebrew beliefs. the mystics actually believed that one facet of god was female. no. i said a point of yours almost made sense, and you replied by saying it didn't. please note we have skeletons of all of those. but that's about half the argument. can you get the rest on your own?

yes, actually, it does. the cambrian explosion wasn't an explosion as such. we just have more fossils in the cambrian than precambrian. this is the point when life started developing hard parts, like shells. before then, the soft animals didn't fossilize nearly as well.that very adequately explains the cambrian explosion.

now, what was that explanation again?