Cambrian Explosion

Jet Black · Mar 9, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
Hi Jet, long time no see. Good to see you here again.

hi there probably only for a whort while though.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_making_010815-1.html

I don't really see how that addresses the points I made. It's also rather out of date. and in any case the ages of the sun earth and moon all far predate the earliest ages of life on earth.

As you can see this verse comes before the creation of the earth and moon.
[/COLOR]

but it doesn't address the lights in the firmament, which is what I was asking about.

caravelair · Mar 9, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
First of all, I have given some scenerios where the possibility is there that they happened.

huh? what does that mean? i asked you what evidence would falsify the claim that grasses existed in the precambrian. what you said above does not answer that question, and does not appear to make any sense either.

I have already stated that they are not supported by the evidence.

not only does the evidence not support the claim that grasses existed in the precambrian, but it clearly implies that they did not. do you agree or disagree? the evidence that grasses did not exist in the precambrian seems to me to be as strong as it possibly could be. i can't imagine what evidence would more strongly imply this, can you?

how can you claim that science supports your hypothesis, when you selectively ignore any evidence which suggests you are wrong? that's not how science works.

I have given a reasonable explanation for my hypothesis, but that is all.

what do you mean by this?

That being said, it is not unusual at all for fossil evidence to be absent and then find a fossil that substanciates a claim.

perhaps, but nothing like finding a cow or grasses in the precambrian has EVER happened. that is quite a different matter. grasses were previously thought to have arrived 55mil years ago, and now we have records over 65mil years. that is the type of find we might expect. it is unreasonable to expect to find them 3 billion years earlier.

One fossil can be all it takes, yet you are claiming that if grasses did exist that there should be grasses in subsequent time periods.

well if they existed in the precambrian, they must have existed since then, right? unless of course they existed, went extinct, and then got re-created again 70 million years ago. is that what you're claiming?

Grasses could have been present but due to the rarity of the fossil record and the fact that plants and grasses are not easily fossilised we may not have found them.

and yet we find many earlier fossils of other plants, as you freely admit. grasses are no less likely to fossilize than many of the other earlier plants we have found. so why are those plants preserved, and not grass? not only is grass not found, but grass pollen, which has also been found fossilized, has never been found more than 70mil years ago. furthermore, our modern species that are adapted to living in grasslands, like horses, arrived in the fossil record around the same time. and then all of a sudden we find many fossilized grasses, pollens, horses, etc after this time period. why were they fossilized with such freqency afterwards, but almost not at all before hand? not even once over the period of more than 3 billion years?

it's also worth noting that we see the same type of pattern with many other species, not just grasses. for example, we do not see land plants at all until 450mil years ago.

come on now, you have to realize that this very strongly suggests grasses did not exist until then. do you admit this? if not, i would suspect you of lying.

furthermore, i cannot think of evidenc we could possibly find that would suggest this more strongly. can you? what would it be?

if you can't think of anything stronger, and you still say this claim has not been falsified, then obviously it would not be possible to falsify it, correct?

In fact, it was once considered that plants didn't exist until 100 million years ago

source, please.

Which has been my point and you continue to argue against it.

i have never argued against the fact that evolution is not falsified by anything in the precambrian.

That is a strawman.

how is that a strawman? you claim grasses existed in the precambrian. so they must have existed in every time period since then, right? so how on earth is that a misrepresentation of your position?

It is perfectly possible that they could have existed in the earlier time period, been destroyed or even still existed and due to rarity of fossilization remain unkown.

it is extremely unlikely that they would have existed for 3.5 billion years, and not ever get fossilized once until 70mil years ago, and then suddenly get frequently fossilized afterwards.

Again, you use the "staggeringly incomplete" fossil record to support your opinion but claim I can't when explaining mine.

you can claim that, but if the fossil record is too incomplete for us to evaluate your predictions, then they can't be falsifiable predictions, can they? evolution, on the other hand, makes prediction about what we should find in the present too, so we don't need the fossil record at all for evolution to be falsifiable.

First of all, I gave examples of possibility.

not in your exchange with me, you didn't. otherwise please show me where you gave examples.

A specific example of evidence to falsifiy my claim would be to find fossil evidence of a cow prior to life beginning in the sea.

first of all, this isn't what i was asking for. if you look at the text you were responding to, i said this:

caravelair said:
i asked you for a specific example of evidence that would falsify your claim that grasses have existed since the precambrian.

your example does not answer this question.

secondly, and more importantly, finding a cow so earlier than sea life would NOT falsify your hypothesis, because you could always claim that sea life existed earlier, and we simply haven't found the fossils to prove it yet, EXACTLY as you are doing with the grasses example. if you can do that with grasses, you can do the same thing with your cow example.

Or to find a human fossil prior to life in the seas or birds.

same as above.

True, which is what I stated over and over. I am saying only that there is possibility of them existing. Which there is.

there is also a possibility that leprechauns exist, but i have no reason to believe that it is so. likewise, i have no reason to believe that grasses existed before 70mil years ago.

I just did.

nope.

I never claimed it did.

yes you did, you said this:

Oncedeceived said:
The order is predicted in Genesis and the fossil record supports that.

part of the order is that grasses would have existed in the precambrian. you say the fossil record supports the order, how does it support this claim?

See above.

i'll admit, you did give it a good shot, and your example was quite specific, which is what i asked for. on the other hand, i have shown above how this example would not falsify your hypothesis. you can always play the same game you are playing with our grass example.

My hypothesis does not rest entirely on this verse. Other verses are supported by evidence.

any prediction of a hypothesis will falsify the entire hypothesis if the prediction is wrong. so either this prediction about grasses falsifies your hypothesis, or it is not a falsifiable prediction, would you agree?

Could be falsified just as ToE is later on as well.

but you claimed that the order of life in genesis was one of it's falsifiable predictions.

dad · Mar 9, 2006

caravelair said:
part of the order is that grasses would have existed in the precambrian. you say the fossil record supports the order, how does it support this claim?
.

They did exist, but only in the garden of Eden. That is where they were needed. Plants and animals, and sea creatures in the sea of Eden eventually spread out, and started to show up in the record. The record supports this. (At least as much as your claims)

caravelair · Mar 9, 2006

dad said:
They did exist, but only in the garden of Eden.

evidence? no? thought so.

Plants and animals, and sea creatures in the sea of Eden eventually spread out, and started to show up in the record.

3.5 billion years later. right.

The record supports this.

no it does not.

Loudmouth · Mar 9, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
It doesn't matter as I have argued, the meaning of the Hebrew word in the verse when translated from Hebrew translators is sea creatures and not whales. So your point is groundless.

I am not arguing over the translation of "sea creatures". I will grant you that sea creatures can not be translated to mean whale, since it doesn't impact my argument one bit. It is the phrase after sea creatures that states "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems". This verse clearly states that there are more animals other than "great creatures of the sea" or "sea creatures". This would include shrimp, squid, and whales. Last I checked whales are alive, they move, and they teem in the waters.

LM: The Hebrew text states "everything teeming in the waters". How do you exclude whales from this group?

OD: Because they were not in the waters yet.

So you exclude anything that goes against your hypothesis? How interesting.

caravelair · Mar 9, 2006

Loudmouth said:
So you exclude anything that goes against your hypothesis? How interesting.

that's his version of the scientific method, apparantly.

dad · Mar 9, 2006

caravelair said:
caravelair said:

evidence? no? thought so.

Click to expand...

Evidence that they evolved from near nothing? No? Thought so. From the actual evidence we do have it explains as well as anything you have.

3.5 billion years later. right.

Click to expand...

Old agers, get a rush out of hearing this sort of empty statement?

no it does not.

Click to expand...

You can bet your life it most certainly does.

caravelair · Mar 9, 2006

dad said:
Evidence that they evolved from near nothing? No? Thought so.

Click to expand...

contrary to your claim, we do have evidence that grasses evolved. on the other hand, you have no evidence that grasses existed in the garden of eden, or even that the garden of eden itself existed.

From the actual evidence we do have it explains as well as anything you have.

Click to expand...

the garden of eden story explains nothing whatsoever about grasses, or their existence. on the other hand, evolution does offer a testable explanation of how they came into existence.

Old agers, get a rush out of hearing this sort of empty statement?

You can bet your life it most certainly does.

Click to expand...

i really am not interested in debating someone like you, who lives in a fantasy world where anything you imagine is true if you say so, regardless of evidence, and nothing anyone else says can be true if it contradicts you, regardless of evidence. such a debate would be entirely pointless.

so let's just leave it at that.

dad · Mar 9, 2006

caravelair said:
caravelair said:

contrary to your claim, we do have evidence that grasses evolved. on the other hand, you have no evidence that grasses existed in the garden of eden, or even that the garden of eden itself existed.

Click to expand...

You have no evidence the primordal pond existed! At least I have God's word for it! You say you have evidence grass evolved? What is it? I have no problem if it really did, you see, as many things evolved. If you can prove Eden's grass evolved, why, fine. Nevertheless, grass was there in Eden. So --what evolving?
I remember some telling me that dinos didn't eat grass, it wasn't here yet. Oh, this is cience, said they! Ha. Thair fables need tweaking all the time.
"Some Dinos Dined on Grass "
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20051130/Note2.asp

the garden of eden story explains nothing whatsoever about grasses, or their existence.

Click to expand...

Oh, but it does, it shows they were always here. That's more than you have yet clued in to!

on the other hand, evolution does offer a testable explanation of how they came into existence.

Click to expand...

False. All we know is that some adapting or evolving in some things took place, the rest is purely in your head!!

You have nothing to debate with.

Oncedeceived · Mar 10, 2006

Jet Black said:
hi there probably only for a whort while though.

Ah. Too bad. Simply too busy?

I don't really see how that addresses the points I made. It's also rather out of date. and in any case the ages of the sun earth and moon all far predate the earliest ages of life on earth.

If you have some newer data then by all means bring it forward. What is your point on the earliest ages of life on earth being far later than the formation of the sun, earth and moon?

but it doesn't address the lights in the firmament, which is what I was asking about

Yes, it does. If the moon and sun were not formed as of yet, where do you suppose the light came from in this verse?

Oncedeceived · Mar 10, 2006

caravelair said:
that's his version of the scientific method, apparantly.

You might want to check the gender sign....

Oncedeceived · Mar 10, 2006

Loudmouth said:
I am not arguing over the translation of "sea creatures". I will grant you that sea creatures can not be translated to mean whale, since it doesn't impact my argument one bit. It is the phrase after sea creatures that states "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems". This verse clearly states that there are more animals other than "great creatures of the sea" or "sea creatures". This would include shrimp, squid, and whales. Last I checked whales are alive, they move, and they teem in the waters.

Do you not think that the waters teemed with every living and moving thing in the Cambrian? Life was abundant! All present phyla were present in the Cambrian waters. Does that mean that it means less than present day? Genesis is talking about Creation, periods of creation. It clearly specifies that waters had life prior to the land life.

What we have presently, whales, has nothing in the least to do with the verse you are quoting. Genesis is speaking only of when these things were created.

So you exclude anything that goes against your hypothesis? How interesting

I have already said that the verse on plants has no supportive evidence. I clearly stated this from the start, so why do you insist on acting like I am being unreasonable?

Oncedeceived · Mar 10, 2006

I've got to go take a shower if I have time I'll come back and get the response that I didn't respond to.

Jet Black · Mar 10, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
Ah. Too bad. Simply too busy?

basically yes, I have alot of things that I am sorting out.

If you have some newer data then by all means bring it forward.

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5629/84

What is your point on the earliest ages of life on earth being far later than the formation of the sun, earth and moon?

the formation of the sun and moon are put after the formation of life.

Yes, it does. If the moon and sun were not formed as of yet, where do you suppose the light came from in this verse?

I am asking what the lights in the firmament are.

The light prior to that could be earlier versions of the CMB - there was plenty light around before there were stars generating it through fusion. In any case, you don't get day/night from stars. since the distribution is effectively uniform.

Jet Black · Mar 10, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
Do you not think that the waters teemed with every living and moving thing in the Cambrian? Life was abundant! All present phyla were present in the Cambrian waters.

just for a moment, why are you so hooked on bringing "all present phyla" up all the time? You do know that phyla are an artificial man made construct and there is nothing especially special about them, don't you?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/04/down_with_phyla_1.html

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/down_with_phyla.html

Oncedeceived · Mar 10, 2006

Well I have to go, I took to long I guess. I'll get to this when I can.

Sorry.

caravelair · Mar 10, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
You might want to check the gender sign....

oops! sorry...

Oncedeceived · Mar 11, 2006

Jet Black said:
basically yes, I have alot of things that I am sorting out.

I hope that you get things in order.

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5629/84

Timing of the Moon-forming impact

[FONT=&quot]It is now widely accepted that the Moon formed from the impact of a Mars-sized body with the Earth, sometime early in Earths history. There is plenty of evidence to support this theory, but the most compelling is that the Moon is strongly deficient in iron relative to the Earth and to other terrestrial planets. Modeling studies suggest that an impact of the type envisioned would have resulted in the ejection of a significant proportion of the silicate mantles but not the metallic cores - of both Earth and the impactor into orbit around the Earth. This material is assumed to have then coalesced to form the Moon, while the remaining parts of both bodies remained with the Earth. (see simulation)[/FONT]

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov[FONT=&quot]/[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Several aspects of this theory are not well constrained, including the timing of the event, and the relative of proportions of Earth and the impactor that now make up the Moon. Carsten M[/FONT]ü[FONT=&quot]nker and other geochemists from the University of Münster have used niobium (Nb) and tantalum (Ta) data from the Earth and Moon, and from several other solar-system bodies (from meteorites) to help narrow down these parameters. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As described in the box below, the Nb/Ta ratios of most solar-system silicates are very close to 20. The close agreement is due to the fact that under most circumstances these elements behave very similarly. Terrestrial (earth crust and mantle) silicates, on the other hand, show a much wider range of Nb/Ta ratios, and an average ratio close to 14. The reason for the difference is that while Nb is normally lithophile, it can be siderophile under pressures that exist in the earths mantle and core. During formation of our mantle and core, therefore, some of the Nb (but very little of the Ta), was fractionated into the core thus producing a low Nb/Ta ratio in our crust and mantle. On other smaller planets, such as Mars and the Moon-forming impactor, this fractionation did not take place because the pressure was never high enough during core formation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Assuming that the Moon is largely comprised of mantle material from both Earth and the impactor, which had Nb/Ta ratios approaching 14 and very close to 20 respectively, we can use lunar Nb/Ta ratios (which are close to 17) to estimate the proportion of impactor material in the Moon. M[/FONT]ü[FONT=&quot]nker et al (2003) propose a value of less than 65%, and probably between 30 and 50%. Furthermore, since other evidence shows that the Earths core and mantle continued to evolve after the Moon-forming impact, and that core formation was completed by around 4.53 b.y. ago (Kleine et al., 2002), we can speculate that the Moon-forming impact probably took place before 4.53 b.y., not very long after the solar system started forming, at around 4.6 b.y.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]References [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kleine, T., Münker, C., Mezger K. and Palme, H., 2002, Rapid accretion and early core formation on asteroids and the terrestrial planets from Hf-W chronometry, Nature, V., 418, p. 952-955. (August 2002)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]M[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ü[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nker, C, Pfander, J, Weyer, S, B[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ü[/FONT][FONT=&quot]chl, A, Kleine, T and Mezger, K, 2003, Evolution of planetary cores and Earth-Moon from Nb/Ta systematics, Science, V. 301, p. 84-87 (July 2003)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The elements niobium (Nb) and tantalum (Ta) are useful for understanding some geochemical processes because of their similar properties and behaviour. Adjacent elements in column 5b of the periodic table, they both form ions with charges of +5, and they have similar ionic radii (0.60 and 0.68 Å). Both are also strongly lithophile meaning that under normal conditions they are much more likely to combine with silicates (eg. rocks of the crust and mantle) than with metals (eg. the core). This is why most silicate materials in the solar system have generally consistent Nb/Ta ratios of 20 - close to their universal abundance ratio. In the past few years it has been discovered that Nb can become siderophile (likely to combine with metals) under very high pressures. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Such pressures exist within the mantle and core of the Earth, but other terrestrial bodies, such as Mars, the Moon and the asteroids are too small for sufficiently high internal pressures. When core-mantle equilibration occurred on Earth some of the Nb was partitioned into the metallic core, thus explaining Earth's low and variable Nb/Ta ratios.[/FONT]

Oncedeceived · Mar 11, 2006

Jet Black said:
I am asking what the lights in the firmament are.

The light prior to that could be earlier versions of the CMB - there was plenty light around before there were stars generating it through fusion. In any case, you don't get day/night from stars. since the distribution is effectively uniform.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. 3 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. {P} And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

AS you can see, it doesn't say that the light divides the day and night. Just that the light He called day and the darkness He called night. He says that light divided the darkness.

Oncedeceived · Mar 11, 2006

caravelair said:
oops! sorry...

LOL, I've done the same thing before.

Cambrian Explosion

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency