The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

I could say the same. Until you present strong evidence for the origins of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, this is just another example of silly evolutionist fantasies. Obviously if most major phyla suddenly appear this points to creation.Reveal your evidence of evolution........ I await in anticipation............ explain the Cambrian Explosion.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

The bible is not mutually exclusive2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.Seven pairs (14) of the clean animals
One pair (2) of the unclean animalsJust an interesting bible fact some of you may not know

You say the bible is wrong about bats being birds. Does the Hebrew word for birds in Leviticus refer to flying creatures generally, or does it specifically refer to the biological classification of ornithurae?Maybe you didn't think it through when you criticised the bible unfairly?Also who knows if the classification of clean and unclean kinds regarding ark numbers was the same as the classification system centuries later when referring to clean and unclean kinds from a dietary perspective. Have you a biblical perspective on this?

I think some people still may not know that the bible refers to 14 animals for some kinds.I don't see the need to throw around personal insults. If you have an unkind personality it must be unpleasant to live with yourself. No harm in kindness and manners.

Hmm, avoiding the question huhIt's only fair that I point the same question back at evolutionists. At least I can claim all modern creatures are rapid adaptations from the original creation of phyla at the Cambrian Explosion. Whether we one day find those niche mammals or they rapidly adapted from those original phyla, creation explains those original kinds. Creation theory is therefore coherent. Clear. With evidence.If you wish to claim that those original phyla which suddenly appeared had ancestors you have to show your evidence, otherwise your theory fails in comparison to creation.

So you openly criticize a religious book and feel no obligation to back up your criticism with facts. That is an interesting perspective for a participant in a scientific website.

That is a very emotive answers without any facts.I have the Sudden appearance of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion without any hint at where they came from as supporting evidence for creation. You have .... no supporting evidence for evolution.Interesting emotive response. I'm still waiting. Where is your evidence for evolution?

Aaah I do see your point now. The Hebrew word for two in Genesis 6 is "shĕnayim" "adjective, dual masculine/feminine noun" referring to two. ie bring them into the ark in pairs. Male and female pairs.
Genesis 7 then gives more detail, saying 7 male and female pairs for the clean. And one male and female pair for the unclean. Whether its 7 pairs, or one pair, ALL the creatures on the ark were brought onto the ark in pairs as instructed in Genesis 6.And so no contradiction exists.

Obviously there is not always an exact word in English for every Hebrew word. So then one has to be careful when criticising a translated book thousands of years old without looking up the Hebrew.The Hebrew word used in Leviticus 11 is "owph" which means flying creatures and even includes insects.So there is no error there in the bible. But isn't this off topic.

I beg to differ. Context is important when interpreting the bible. In Genesis 6:19 as well as Genesis 7:15-16 twos are mentioned, specifically male and female. Considering context is about preserving life, its pretty obvious when the twos are mentioned these are mating pairs. Some bibles rather use the word "pairs". Noah is instructed to bring mating pairs from all sorts onto the ark. In Genesis 7:2-3 he is more specifically instructed to bring seven pairs from certain sorts.And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.Think of it like this: there is a national dance competition. They are instructed to bring couples from every state to the competition. But then they are specifically told to bring 3 couples from the bigger states. Does this contradict their original instruction to bring couples from every state? No it does not.So I do not see any contradiction there. The mention of twos is an emphasis on mating pairs of the various kinds/sorts.

I do believe in rapid short term evolution, more than other creationists and any evolutionists are willing to admit. I believe this is through changing allele frequencies.But honestly that was just an idea I was throwing out to base "kinds" on phyla. My apology for giving the wrong impression of my view. It's difficult to determine a "kind" without DNA analysis of those original species and the existence of convergent evolution makes it difficult to judge based on outward appearance of the fossils. The "kind" is logically determined by DNA structure, number of genes, number of base pairs in each gene, number of chromosomes, length of chromosomes etc Within that DNA structure kinds can rapidly adapt, as has been proven even by the fly which can adapt annually to changes in temperature via changing allele frequencies across the population as the seasons change. I can post a link if you like. (hopefully not because then it takes up my time)

Haha yes I am a "really fast evolutionist". But I believe in observable and provable phenomena. The changing of allele frequencies can cause dramatic changes to outward appearance without changing the DNA structure. In this manner a South American possum can adapt into a variety of outwardly different Australian marsupials whilst still retaining the original matching DNA structure.This is different to the type of evolution described by evolutionists with all modern species surmised as existing due to the number of unique active genes increasing over time since some original prokaryote. I say the core genetic structure of active genes of every kind remains unchanged even across breeds since creation. there will be minor exceptions with maybe some reduction of active DNA functionality in certain instances to create separate breeds, and a few minor point mutations.Honestly my view does require humans and other mammals of today to exist during the time of the Cambrian explosion. Sorry for stating things differently. So other than some OOPARTS which I do believe are legitimate I am missing the masses of fossils one would expect. This is because the only pre-flood environment conducive to mammal life (containing angiosperms) and also less susceptible to flooding is the vast Siberian highland which is covered in volcanic flood basalts (lava rock). Its impossible to dig for fossils there unless one is lucky to find fossils in a deep isolated Russian mine.I believe the missing fossils of the pre-boundary era are a minor flaw in my version of creationist theory compared to lack of evolutionist explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. All those missing links required!

I looked up Ediacaran biota. They do not appear to be the missing link you are looking for. nothing about them appears to be a missing link between prokaryotes and the phyla of the Cambrian Explosion.It appears the predominant environment on the planet was as follows:
1 Cold/Anoxic Ediacaran biota
2 Warm/Anoxic/sulfuric bacteria/trilobites (plus some more)
3 The presence of large volumes of bacteria then cause widespread aerobic conditions.If this is correct , this is not evolution, its the spread of niche organisms due to widespread volcanic activity then widespread bacterial activity allowed more organisms to spread outside their niche.

You are incorrect there. The sudden appearance of a number of organisms even if not reflecting all organisms is still creationist evidence, not evolutionary evidence.

Statements without evidence mean nothing. Someone mentioned Ediacaran organisms as intermediate fossils to explain the sudden appearance of multiple organisms in the Cambrian Explosion. There is nothing intermediate about those fossils. So you need to support your claim of intermediate forms.Please supply your evidence for the sudden appearance of multiple organisms in the Cambrian Explosion. A sudden appearance of organisms points directly to creation, not evolution.