|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: cambrian death cause | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Well, do you have a point on alleles? As it may relate to the thread? I don't doubt DNA, or many things we know something about, except, as it may attempted to be hijacked by evos, to try to prop up their religion. All I did was post a few definitions of the word, which I thought would indicate I have not yet any qualms about what I read as the definition. Now if you go ahead and put an evo spin on it, why, naturally I may be tempted, if I could, to call you down!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Arkathon writes: I was talking about your evo dreams, the alleles, and every other imagination that exists to support the lie. You made the above rather odd statement. When asked about it you were incoherently evasive. That is the point. You clearly are terrified of getting "trapped" into agreeing with any basic facts. If you do they will, one at a time, build up and overwhelm your fantasies. You pretend with enomous arrogance to know something about any of these topics are dare to call answers to your fantasies "lies". When the debate actually gets down to details you evade. You have used the word "lies" more than once. Spell out exactly what are the "lies". Be precise, be detailed and be prepared to defend your accusations or retract them. Your are right that it could get off topic here. Please open a thread for it. I suggest "Lies used to support Evolution" This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-26-2004 12:28 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
I look at the sum of your post here, and smile that 'mr layers' got nothin at all here. Ha. Let me rub it in a little here Nedy, the Edenic/cambrian explanation better explains things than anything else so far avalable. Come on now, punch, punch, after all the paper bag is even quite wet, can't you poke through?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You explanation isn't detailed enough to be meaningful. You evade and duck. You may declare some sort of victory but you don't actually have a clue what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
I think I may have even more than a clue. I may have the key to unlock the mystery. Certainly not though your 'meaty' posts, though! Evolution does not well explain the cambrian explosion. God's creation does! You now have no monopoly on the fossil record. He seems to just have stolen it back?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'd say a cockcroach or a rat is a fundamental change in features from a human and a whale, so what about it? I raised it as a possibility. Seems like living a thousand years, or living 90 years is a pretty fundamental change for humans as well! Fundamentally, let's face it, there has been a lot of change since the cambrian/eden period. and yet you're opposed to evolution, which is a change in heritable features. you don't see a contradiction in that?
This brings to mind another issue. That is the things you may call 'cambrian' seem possibly to be based on fossils in many cases alone!? If this is true, and, say an ancient sea was pushed up in a seperation of the continents, or something, and it had no "cambrian" fossils (since it was the sea, you know, with sharks and stuff) then how would you know it was 'cambrian' or not? I know this one requires a little chewing, and may be too hard for you to grasp, if so, let me know, so I can slow it down for you. 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.
No doubt, these 'natural processes' you think you may perceive in the bible took millions of years, so He could go ahead and lie about how long it really took? quote: quote: 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.
quote: Something tells me she pays tax too. 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.
So, first you paste a verse, then ask me if I think the devil may have inspired it? Well, God allowed it, and so who am I to question? 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.
Perhaps you may prefer this kind of gal Pr 6 "there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart. 11 (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: 12 Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.) quote: 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.
Not at all, just a fact, because of man's disobedience. Besides, He also said a lot of things more like this Ps 133:3 "As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore." Granny, eat your heart out! 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.
Yes, we could call it that. we do.
But to take His processes, and extrapolate it backwards beyond God and reason is another matter altogether! Ha, now 'we' mapped it back. Yeah, back beyond God-some cockeyed map! 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.
Because you were taught a lie. However, many who were taught the same lies have found the wherewithal to reject them. 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.
A process lasting 6 days. see above.
Well, I can take it for what it's worth. As far as women, learning some meekness, I think it's a great idea! 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.
Some poor nincompoop trained poster said all mammals including whales came from a small 'rodent like creature'. So it makes only total sense when I say "Actually, I do think it is riddiculous for whales coming from rodents! "! Now if you want to try to harp on the rodent 'like' part, that is really of no concequence, still like a little rat or mouse! 'A rose by any other name, is still a rose'. And you can still smell it! 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Evolution does not well explain the cambrian explosion. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Let me rub it in a little here Nedy, the Edenic/cambrian explanation better explains things than anything else so far avalable. now, what was that explanation again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Evolution does not well explain the cambrian explosion. God's creation does! ROTFLMAO What a statement. Do you by any chance remember what you titled this thread? And now let's return for a moment to a question that you have still failed to address. What critters died out during the Cambrian Era? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The problem is, you don't have a scientific explanation. A scientific explanation requires evidence, of which you have zero. Start with your evidence and move towards a conclusion, I dare you. First explain that mammals were alive at the same time as trilobites. Next, explain how you KNOW the lifespans of creatures differed greatly from what they are now (by many orders of magnitude). Then, explain how sediment formation is drastically different during the cambrian than it is now (by observations, which you lack). Care to take my challenge?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Any adapting or evoluting happens under the timeframe of creation, and as a result of things God set in motion, or it does not happen. [quote]The cambrian rocks all look a certain way, no matter if they're horizontal, diagonal, vertical, etc. and they're ALWAYS below ordovician rocks, ....[/quoe] OK thanks for letting us know how it must always work. So the Burgess cambrian, then must also follow these guidelines? quote:So in the cambrian, how does the c13 date? If there was a big tomic level change around thet time, for example, where things started to die much faster, would not such a change affect the way you measure the present decay rates, etc? As far as your "ANGULAR UNCONFORMITIES" occur wherever sedimentary rocks have been folded or faulted and tilted from their original horizontal position such as results during mountain building events. If, following mountain building, deposition is renewed on the erosional surface, the new sediments are deposited horizontally and therefore make an angle with the tilted rocks beneath the unconformity surface. (Page Not Found | University of Arkansas) So it seems to me that we would expect such things if the continents did slide apart somehow, combined with the pre and post flood depositions. --As far as the day thing, sorry, regardless of the talmud the cambrian mud was filled with life God made in the 6 days. You can seek out someone to argue this with if you want. I don't consider it debatable myself. Even if you can't get your head around the simple 'morning and the evening' We can break it down further. John 11:9 "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?.." Unless you think He was nuts too, and that He really was dead for millions of years, which you interpret the three days to be, then Jesus, and I beg to differ! quote:You are dreaming. A little meekness never hurt woman or man. You can bag your silly 'oh, he hates women, and Paul was such a meanie, etc' and serve it up to some rodent like creature! quote:Nonsense. It's a fact. We are tops. How much more blessed can we get, He even commanded eternal life for us. Anyhow what "science" says is not an issue, only what the evo spinmeisters want to twist it into to fit their beliefs, is the issue. That is, that we really, are mere beasts, with animal forefathers, and a Godless past, and future. quote:Baloney! True science is all over the Almighty, like a pig on slop! Those elements of science that omit Him, simply relegate themselves as falsified! Pagan philosophy in the guise of science is a Christ hating farce that is near the end of it's ugly time of existance as anything but an eternal laughing stock! quote:So do I, the Holy Spirit, what about it? quote:Of course, even a schoolchild who knew evolution was a crock could see the old cut and paste 'guilt by association' trip! 'Hey, God's creatures that they show here kind of look like each other, gee they must have just came from each other without God. Cheap insinuations, carefully crafted to muddy creation waters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:That the life that was fossilized from the cambrian explosion was one of created creatures dying, not evolving from each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Easy, trilobites, under this model, were extra Eden creations, who had a purpose in being globally spread. quote:I don't throw out the record we were given from the time, by the creator, who vividly, and repeatedly tells us men lived, there, after Eden, to just under a thousand years. quote:Water is needed for sediments. In the Edenic time, we had a world that was new, and that had been exposed, covered, devided from water. Also, under there was water, and atleast for a time in the early creation stage, a mist did come up. Then we have a world of cambrian life, worms, etc, who operated in the (often super saturated?) (possibly not super densely packed down?) new planet. Obviously there is a large amount of discussion on this topic possible, but the evolutionary model is not the only one. Only by omiting God can it even be considered, and then, only by faith, as there is no concrete evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Any adapting or evoluting happens under the timeframe of creation, and as a result of things God set in motion, or it does not happen. i see. so you're against evolution, but only when it doesn't suit your needs. right.
OK thanks for letting us know how it must always work. So the Burgess cambrian, then must also follow these guidelines? what's exceptional about the burgess shale is that it is one of the rare examples of fossilization of soft-bodied organisms that were alive in the cambrian era. what's your point?
So in the cambrian, how does the c13 date? If there was a big tomic level change around thet time, for example, where things started to die much faster, would not such a change affect the way you measure the present decay rates, etc? no, decay rates are constant. if something is not constant, it hard to call it a rate. i don't know what your point is about the c13. perhaps we're not too clear on what the record holds. there's a DROP in c13 at upper boundary of the cambrian layer. so if your death rays made c13, they STOPPED at the end of the cambrian. and i was refering to the uranium lead datings, as well as the other isotopes. much more precise than the c13.
As far as your "ANGULAR UNCONFORMITIES" occur wherever sedimentary rocks have been folded or faulted and tilted from their original horizontal position such as results during mountain building events. If, following mountain building, deposition is renewed on the erosional surface, the new sediments are deposited horizontally and therefore make an angle with the tilted rocks beneath the unconformity surface. (Page Not Found | University of Arkansas) So it seems to me that we would expect such things if the continents did slide apart somehow, combined with the pre and post flood depositions ...no. you missed it somewhere. ok. a bunch of layers are laid down. they're folded, tipped, etc, and worn down a bit. then new layers form on top, but horizontally. the layers above the angular unconformity HAVE TO BE YOUNGER than the layers below. that's simple logic. so, lets say that in grand canyon, the precambrian layers are all about 45 degrees, and the cambrian is level. these two layers could not have been laid down at the same time. the cambrian has to be younger. now, let's say in the mojave desert, there's another such unconformity between the lower and upper permian layers. the upper permian and triasic rock therefore had to be laid down after the permian rock, which is well on top of the cambrian rock (separated by a few layers). starting to get the picture? all the rock COULD NOT have been laid down at a single time.
--As far as the day thing, sorry, regardless of the talmud the cambrian mud was filled with life God made in the 6 days. You can seek out someone to argue this with if you want. I don't consider it debatable myself. Even if you can't get your head around the simple 'morning and the evening' We can break it down further. John 11:9 "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?.." Unless you think He was nuts too, and that He really was dead for millions of years, which you interpret the three days to be, then Jesus, and I beg to differ! i see. scientific theory -- up for debate. but don't touch the religion we're bashing it with! there is more than one reading of genesis, and the explanation about days it took god to tell moses makes sense: it explain why god is in speaking mode as opposed to creating mode.
You are dreaming. A little meekness never hurt woman or man. You can bag your silly 'oh, he hates women, and Paul was such a meanie, etc' and serve it up to some rodent like creature! i quoted something that blatantly chauvenistic and pure bigotry, and you agreed with it. he doesn't say men should do the same thing, btw, quite the opposite.
Nonsense. It's a fact. We are tops. How much more blessed can we get, He even commanded eternal life for us. quote: Anyhow what "science" says is not an issue, actually, it is. you're debating science.
only what the evo spinmeisters want to twist it into to fit their beliefs, is the issue. That is, that we really, are mere beasts, with animal forefathers, as far as i can, it's only the creationists that are twisting anything. here's a good test: which camp says the other cannot belong to it? the theory of evolution does not deny god -- many "evolutionist" i know are christians, myself included. however, creationism absolutely precludes evolution for some reason. in fact, i'm willing to bet you'll even go as far as to say i'm not really christian. people have before. but, you know, that's against the whole "judge not" idea, isn't it?
Baloney! True science is all over the Almighty, like a pig on slop! blasphemy!
Those elements of science that omit Him, simply relegate themselves as falsified! Pagan philosophy in the guise of science is a Christ hating farce that is near the end of it's ugly time of existance as anything but an eternal laughing stock! the only "science" that says anything about god is creationism, and that's just not science. it's religion. true science should validate god, and since true science doesn't validate your god, you must be wrong. also, evolution allows for creative forces -- it's called "artificial selection." we humans do it all the time to animals. there's no reason to say that god wouldn't use artificial, or "supernatural" selection to produce humans. i bet he'd be really good at it too, knowing the future.
Of course, even a schoolchild who knew evolution was a crock could see the old cut and paste 'guilt by association' trip! 'Hey, God's creatures that they show here kind of look like each other, gee they must have just came from each other without God. Cheap insinuations, carefully crafted to muddy creation waters. no one is saying anything about god. only you. you're trying to build a straw man, and it's not working. you're debating with a christian here. if evolution said something about god, i wouldn't be arguing it. plain and simple. the "they just look similar" argument always gets me. creationists can never find the line when one animal starts being another that just looks similar but was specially created, and when it's the same animal. for instance, the 4.5% genetic varience between us and neanderthals makes us basically the same thing, but the 4.5% between us and chimps makes them something else. can you tell these people are just making stuff up as they go along? science has very clear lines. they're called species. and we seem to get new ones all the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
quote:That the life that was fossilized from the cambrian explosion was one of created creatures dying, not evolving from each other i see, but the sharks we have today evolved from earlier sharks that were different? we asked for an explanation of how every living cambrian thing died, but left no evidence of any later creature being alive at the time. you have not provided a satisfactory explanation, just more one-liners and silly propaganda.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024