Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   cambrian death cause
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 232 (127599)
07-26-2004 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by NosyNed
07-26-2004 12:02 AM


evo spin meisters
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 12:02 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 1:27 AM simple has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 167 of 232 (127605)
07-26-2004 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by simple
07-26-2004 12:51 AM


Alleles
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 12:51 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 1:36 AM NosyNed has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 232 (127609)
07-26-2004 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by NosyNed
07-26-2004 1:27 AM


white glove treatment
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 1:27 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 1:43 AM simple has replied
 Message 173 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2004 9:07 AM simple has replied
 Message 175 by Loudmouth, posted 07-26-2004 2:16 PM simple has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 169 of 232 (127612)
07-26-2004 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by simple
07-26-2004 1:36 AM


Re: white glove treatment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 1:36 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 1:52 AM NosyNed has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 232 (127615)
07-26-2004 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by NosyNed
07-26-2004 1:43 AM


Re: white glove treatment
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 1:43 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2004 9:05 AM simple has not replied
 Message 174 by jar, posted 07-26-2004 1:43 PM simple has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 171 of 232 (127713)
07-26-2004 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by simple
07-26-2004 12:44 AM


Re: Granny, eat your heart out!
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:
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.
quote:
but that's not a connection. that's like saying britney spears and tax day are related
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:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 12:44 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 3:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 172 of 232 (127714)
07-26-2004 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by simple
07-26-2004 1:52 AM


Re: white glove treatment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 1:52 AM simple has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 173 of 232 (127716)
07-26-2004 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by simple
07-26-2004 1:36 AM


Re: white glove treatment
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 1:36 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 3:49 PM arachnophilia has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 174 of 232 (127807)
07-26-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by simple
07-26-2004 1:52 AM


Re: white glove treatment
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 1:52 AM simple has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 232 (127821)
07-26-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by simple
07-26-2004 1:36 AM


Re: white glove treatment
quote:
Let me rub it in a little here Nedy, the Edenic/cambrian explanation better explains things than anything else so far avalable.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 1:36 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 4:01 PM Loudmouth has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 232 (127859)
07-26-2004 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by arachnophilia
07-26-2004 9:03 AM


Re: Granny, eat your heart out!
quote:
and yet you're opposed to evolution, which is a change in heritable features
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:
and radiometric dating.
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:
go ahead and condemn an entire gender ..
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:
assuming you are god's most blessed creation, at the center of everything, is pride. and a sin.
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:
science says nothing about god, at all, ever. one way or the other.
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:
the mystics actually believed that one facet of god was female.
So do I, the Holy Spirit, what about it?
quote:
please note we have skeletons of all of those. but that's about half the argument. can you get the rest on your own?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2004 9:03 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2004 5:37 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 232 (127860)
07-26-2004 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by arachnophilia
07-26-2004 9:07 AM


Re: white glove treatment
quote:
now, what was that explanation again?
That the life that was fossilized from the cambrian explosion was one of created creatures dying, not evolving from each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2004 9:07 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2004 5:41 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 232 (127864)
07-26-2004 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Loudmouth
07-26-2004 2:16 PM


Re: white glove treatment
quote:
First explain that mammals were alive at the same time as trilobites.
Easy, trilobites, under this model, were extra Eden creations, who had a purpose in being globally spread.
quote:
Next, explain how you KNOW the lifespans of creatures differed greatly from what they are now (by many orders of magnitude).
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:
Then, explain how sediment formation is drastically different during the cambrian than it is now (by observations, which you lack
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Loudmouth, posted 07-26-2004 2:16 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2004 5:52 PM simple has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 179 of 232 (127889)
07-26-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by simple
07-26-2004 3:46 PM


Re: Granny, eat your heart out!
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:
A little meekness never hurt woman or man
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 3:46 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 6:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 180 of 232 (127891)
07-26-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by simple
07-26-2004 3:49 PM


Re: white glove treatment
quote:
now, what was that explanation again?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 3:49 PM simple has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024