cambrian death cause

there is almost no concievable way that something would kill off all of certain kinds of life and none of other kinds. we'd certainly have found an example of one of the "higher" more modern forms of life in cambrian strata, for instance.

this may be true. it may not be true. but we're not dealing with two animals, we're dealing with ALL of them. explain to me how the weakened, retarded, runty rhinocerous of the pack didn't die? there's should be SOME examples to suggest that it was there at the time, even if none of them died. you know, like, footprints. something. how did the frail insects, susceptable to mass climactic change, survive, but the not the robust hardy trilobite? and if it were merely a size issue, where did our small animals today come from?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-09-2004 05:50 AM

maybe i'm reading my bible differently, but it says that after they got kicked out, have cain and abel, cain kills abel, and then goes to nod and gets someone pregnant.it certainly sounds like there was someone else outside the garden. if not, where did cain's wife come from? was she a child of adam and eve that just got neglected to be mentioned with all the hub-bub of four people in the world, and managed to sneak out to nod before anyone noticed what happened? like what, exactly?certainly none of these questions:

quote:

---

What critters and things died off during each of the Cambrian Extinctions?
Why did no flowering plants die during the whole period?
Why did no dinosaurs die during the whole period?
Why did no men die during the whole period?
Why did no grasses die during the whole period?
Why did no birds die during the whole period?
Why did no mammals die during the whole period?
Why did no reptiles die during the whole period?

---

i think we're reading a different bible. mine says this:

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

---

which means that he's not immortal originally. the serpent was right, wasn't he? genesis chapter what? yeah, unless you know the first thing about the hebrew numerical practice of ascribing large ages to significant people. mammals and birds do not continue to grow until they die like reptiles, insects, and amphibians. and we know what baby dinosaurs looked like, btw. they don't start off that small, having held a few tarbosaur eggs myself.also, big dragonflies require a different atmosphere.

arkathon: this was a totally unsatisfying reply. you didn't address any of my important but keep rambling on about what you have you completely ignored my biblical evidence that people were not immortal inside the garden if eden. yeah, that's nice and all, but where did cain's wife come from? not adam and eve. deep is right.the grand canyon is about 4500 ft deep, and goes down to the precambrian strata. at it's top, it's permian (just before the triassic). at it's lowest point in the grand canyon, the colorado river is 910 feet above sea level. stacking zion national park, wihc contains triassic and early jurassic rock, and bryce canyon, which contains jurassic through tertiary (almost modern) rock, that's about 9000 feet of sedimentary deposits.if the earth is 6000 years old, that's a foot and a half a year.i've lived in this house for 18 years. why am i not under 27 feet of sediment?

no, the question is essential for arguing your point of view. you ARE arguing the bible, in some fashion, because what else have you based this speculation on? my point is that it is not even an accurate rendition of what the bible says.and no, it doesn't fit creation better. you have to do these amazing mental gymnastics of "well maybe it killed off all of this type, without leaving any evidence that anything else existed at the same time." periodic extinctions are pretty common in the earth's history. they can't all be explained by the flood, and adding "death rays" isn't helping. yes, it is. you said that there were no other people besides adam and eve, who were originally in eden. the bible mentions someone who was not. no, they're ON TOP of cambrian and precambrian rock. the simple amount of stuff on top of those layers suggests that, by your theory, we're accumulating one and a half feet of rock a year, which simply isn't so.

you're talking about cambrian rock. do you realize there's more than a mile of other rock on top of it in the geologic column? so cambrian life existed all over, but more "advanced" life was localized? you're grasping at straws here. no, seriously. my objection to your argument, which hinges on no one existing outside eden, has gone unanswered otherwise.

ok, we we'll start with the grand canyon. do you deny that it is over a mile deep at places, and that cambrian rock is right near the bottom of that mile? i'm not talking all over the world, i'm talking in ONE PLACE.the cambrian layers, plural -- there's three of them, are below 8 other distinct layers of rock in the grand canyon. each layer has different composition, and is cleanly delineated from the last, which is evidence that they were made seperately. and no, they are not sorted by density or mass.the grand canyon doesn't even go as high in geologic column as the triassic. the column itself is made by overlapping sets of strata that match.there's another problem. the precambrian layer isn't level. it's what's called an angular unconformity. the layers on top are all level, but the precambrian section is at quite a steep angle, and is broken off jagged and slightly impedes into the cambrian layer.let me know if work how a flood or death rays or whatever did that. YES! http://EvC Forum: cambrian death cause -->EvC Forum: cambrian death causeyou refuse debate my reading of the bible, which clearly indicates that people existed outside of the garden, even if you read it literally. the second follows from the first. the localization of everything non-cambrian is neccessary for your speculative argument, since any evidence of "higher" life existing in the same place at the same time is absolutely devoid. i don't even know what you're arguing, exactly. but you're trying to find a way to have all of the cambrian life forms die off, and leave no evidence of anythign else existing at the same time.tell me, did cambrian life forms exist outside of the garden of eden before adam got the boot?

the comment was that there is not a single example of anything nearly recent in the cambrian layer.how do you explain that? i've asked the question before. how did all of the cambrian creatures die of, without a single non-cambrian creature dying, or leaving any other trace evidence in any of the THREE cambrian layers?

you think if you repeat it enough times, it'll magically become true? evolution lines up with evidence. creation does not. this thread is very good proof of that. you're trying to rework an evolutionary viewpoint into creationism, and failing to match to evidence. we have mammalian skeletons found in the same place and geological time as dinosaur skeletons. they were abundant in the late cretacious. it's not a theory -- it's observed evidence. the ugaritic, babylonian, and sumerian mythologies the hebrews borrowed from. although the names, dates, genealogies, etc, tend to not line up.the only difference is the lifespan of the bible. people kept adding to the library of books, whereas the epic of gilgamesh stay relatively untouched. (which do you think is more reliable? something people have messed with for thousands of years, or something left untouched? i believe the untouched one is generally an argument for the bible, which history shows to be a bald-faced lie)

hed, don't ask me it, it's in genesis 6. and the book of enoch.and, uhh, i wouldn't say the devil did it, nor demons. it says that angels did it, out of their own volition.

woohoo thread publicity.

nope, STILL not true. there's no such thing as a marine dinosaur. all dinosaurs are land dwellers. the dinosaur-looking things in the ocean were aquatic reptiles, and the ones in the air were flying reptiles. dinosaurs, in the strictest sense, are not true reptiles.

"evolutionary" means dealing with evolution. and contrary to popular belief, doesn't imply the slightest thing about time scales. what you are doing is trying to fit a standard evolutionary and paleontological mechanism -- mass extinction -- into a creationist framework. why not just ignore it, and go with "god sorted it all out by miracle, in order to decieve us?" that's a more logical view point. marine mammals are fairly recent. they show evidence of having adapted from land mammals. marine reptiles existed at a time in which small rodent-like mammals existed, yes. these were the ancestors of marine mammals, which didn't exist until at least 10 million years later.however, jar is still wrong, on a technicality. there's no such thing as marine dinosaurs. only marine reptiles. just a classification thing, really. the dates don't line up with your reading of genesis was what i was trying to say. prove it. prove that everything that has ever happened to the bible was explicitly under the personal direction of god, and not allowing for human error.then go take a look at my apocrypha thread.

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.