Rabbits in the Precambrian

AV1611VET · Oct 12, 2009

DrkSdBls said:
...but isn't it cool that a whole island could be dragged under the sea like that???

I can beat that with a lawn mower blade.

Isn't it cool that a whole supercontinent (Eden) can be segmented into what we see today?

Alunyel · Oct 12, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I can beat that with a lawn mower blade.

Isn't it cool that a whole supercontinent (Eden) can be segmented into what we see today?

If anyone ever called Eden, then it was called Eden by name only. Pangea bore absolutely no resemblance to the Biblical Eden.

AV1611VET · Oct 12, 2009

Wedjat said:
AV, the majority of your posts are counting threads.

No kidding?

That just makes it harder for those who think they know where I stand on issues.

That's why I found it for him.

Wedjat said:
And you change the meaning of creation to mean what you want it to mean.

I do?

You mean from creatio ex materia to creatio ex nihilo?

In order for me to 'change the meaning', I would have to have started out believing in creatio ex materia, then switched over to creatio ex nihilo; something I never did.

Wedjat said:
Without being able to falsify it, your hypothesis is worthless to us.

Unless not being able to falsify it is my 'hypothesis'.

Wedjat said:
Because evolution is science, the creation evolution debate is held on sciences turf.

Unless it is science vs creation, then it can occur right here, as far as I'm concerned.

Wedjat said:
If you want to debate it on religions turf, you need to go to philosophy...

No, I need to go to science --- to show that it is not science.

Wedjat said:
...but as long as science is involved, what you argue is not, in any way shape or form, consistent with science.

You shouldn't be able to come to a site like this, take a verse like Genesis 1:1, claim it is veiled science, then expect us to stay out of your way.

If you are going to claim that science pwns the Bible, or anything in It, get prepared for a lesson on how faith and loyalty operate.

AV1611VET · Oct 12, 2009

Alunyel said:
I've got it pinned down on the fossils of sea dwelling creatures being found inland. Coupled with ancient beliefs about some supernatural being, their god/s causing a flood that put those fossils there makes it easy to udnerstand why so many cultures have a flood myth.

Thousands of years later and we actually know how they got there, got nothin' to do with a global flood.

If you determine that fossils have nothing to do with a global flood, that's your call.

We don't go by fossils to determine there was one.

Alunyel · Oct 12, 2009

AV1611VET said:
In ordUnless not being able to falsify it is my 'hypothesis'.

Not being able to falsify something, or verify something is a bad thing. There's absolutely no way to differentiate whether what you're saying is valid or not. Take the IPU, for example. It's impossible to falsify its existence, but it's equally impossible to verify it. By those standardsm the probability of there being an invisible pink unicorn is exactly the same as the probability that Genesis is correct.

Unless it is science vs creation, then it can occur right here, as far as I'm concerned.No, I need to go to science --- to show that it is not science.You shouldn't be able to come to a site like this, take a verse like Genesis 1:1, claim it is veiled science, then expect us to stay out of your way.

You're right. It's not science. It's ancient bronze age mythology. It's no more science than Zeus, Odin, Ra or Quetzalcoatl.

If you are going to claim that science pwns the Bible, or anything in It, get prepared for a lesson on how faith and loyalty operate.

Science pwns the Bible. Hands down, without a question of a doubt. Science can provide EVIDENCE, and it's completely impartial to what the conclusion drawn from the evidence is. It doesn't care what the conclusion actually is, so long as it's the most probable and accurate.

DrkSdBls · Oct 12, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I can beat that with a lawn mower blade.

Isn't it cool that a whole supercontinent (Eden) can be segmented into what we see today?

Ouch, so Close, AV. You "Almost" stated a scientific fact. You just got the name wrong.

With a little more effort, maybe you'll be able to make coherent arguments afterall.

AV1611VET · Oct 12, 2009

DrkSdBls said:
Ouch, so Close, AV. You "Almost" stated a scientific fact. You just got the name wrong.

With a little more effort, maybe you'll be able to make coherent arguments afterall.

So sorry!

Let's try it again:

Isn't it cool that a supercontinent can be segmented into what we see today with a little plate tectonics, continental drift, folding, volcanic and seismic activity?

Alunyel · Oct 12, 2009

AV1611VET said:
So sorry!

Let's try it again:

Isn't it cool that a supercontinent can be segmented into what we see today with a little plate tectonics, continental drift, folding, volcanic and seismic activity?

Yeah, it's pretty sweet, although it certainly has taken its time.

Say, a couple billion years?

AV1611VET · Oct 12, 2009

Alunyel said:
Yeah, it's pretty sweet, although it certainly has taken its time.

Say, a couple billion years?

God did it --- at the speed of one verse.

Genesis 10:25 said:
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Alunyel · Oct 12, 2009

AV1611VET said:
God did it --- at the speed of one verse.

Impossible. The earth was "divided" long before mankind had evolved.

AV1611VET · Oct 12, 2009

Alunyel said:
Impossible. The earth was "divided" long before mankind had evolved.

'Mankind' didn't evolve --- 'Homo sapiens' allegedly did.

Why do you think we're called mankind?

laconicstudent · Oct 12, 2009

AV1611VET said:
'Mankind' didn't evolve --- 'Homo sapiens' allegedly did.

Why do you think we're called mankind?

its a generic term.... Are you really reduced to this nitpicking?

AV1611VET · Oct 12, 2009

laconicstudent said:
its a generic term.... Are you really reduced to this nitpicking?

It's not exactly 'nitpicking': 2 .

MrGoodBytes · Oct 12, 2009

AV1611VET said:
It's not exactly 'nitpicking': 2 .

No, apparently it's not nitpicking alone, but nitpicking and a non-sequitur.

laconicstudent · Oct 12, 2009

Please note that he is evading the point under discussion, that is continental formation before the development of modern (relatively) humans by playing semantics with "Mankind"

LifeToTheFullest! · Oct 12, 2009

Maybe because Rastafarian's are humans (homo sapiens sapiens) and like to smoke "the kind." Just a guess.

The Lady Kate · Oct 12, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Why do you think we're called mankind?

To give the truly desperate one more straw to grasp at?

catzrfluffy · Oct 13, 2009

Pollen in the Cambrian...

Multiple Lines of Evidence Support the Presence of Cambrian Land Plants
PAUL K. STROTHER
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_114319.htm

------------------

Screenshots of PDFs from Current Science (bit stop-start to download from the site, so this is just easier):
[the articles are found on this site: http://www.ias.ac.in/j_archive/currsci/volindex.html]

Evidence for the Existence of Vascular Land Plants in the Cambrian
K. JACOB, MRS. CHINNA JACOB & R. N. SHRIVASTAVA
Geological Survey of India
Current Science 22:34-36
Current Science Vol.22g34
Current Science Vol.22g35
Current Science Vol.22g36

New Light on the Early Phylogeny of the Vascular Plants and on the Influence of Cycles of Past Glaciation and Mountain-building on Plant Evolution
K. JACOB & MRS. CHINNA JACOB
Geological Survey of India, Calcutta
Geological Survey of India, Calcutta pg133
Geological Survey of India, Calcutta pg134
Geological Survey of India, Calcutta pg135

(just adding some colour)
------------------

Next is a PDF file:

Microflora and Age of Punjab Salt Series from Dhariala Well No. 1, Salt Range, West Pakistan
A. BOSE
[PDF] www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b69_77.pdf

------------------

p.s. the article on pollen in the Cambrian questioned previously on this thread was this: saltrange

Some articles on pollen in the Cambrian, these are only intro.s and abstracts from the articles because one has to subscribe to be able to read them. (not fair.)

Evidence bearing on the age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab.
A. K. GHOSH, J. SEN & A. BOSE
Geological Magazine, 88: 129-132.
Further evidence toward the solution of the problem of the age (Cambrian versus Eocene) of the Punjab saline series, India, is presented. A microflora with elements so far not known to be indigenous to Cambrian rocks is present in samples of the magnesian sandstone, Neobolus shales, and purple sandstone members of the series, all of Cambrian age. The significance is not known.
Geological Magazine Vol.88g129-132

Occurrence of Microflora in the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab
A. K. GHOSH, A. BOSE
Nature 160:796-797
"In view of the great scientific importance of the problem a field-party of geologists visited critical sections in the Salt Range in 1944 and re-examined the field evidence in the light of the microfossil data. Their unanimous verdict is that an Eocene or later age for the Saline Series, as suggested by Sahni and others., is irreconcilable with the field evidence, although they were unable to offer any explanation on the occurrence of minute plant fragments of 'post-Cambrian' age in the dolomites and oil shales."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v160/n4075/pdf/160796b0.pdf
Abstract:
"THE age of the Punjab Saline Series is still a vexed problem in Indian geology. Gee and Fox, to whom we are indebted for much of our geological knowledge of this area, have assigned a Cambrian or pre-Cambrian age to this series. Sahni and Sahni and Trivedi on the other hand, from the evidence of such microfossils, for example, woods of conifers, cuticles of grasses, angiospermous wood elements, etc., and their repeated occurrence at widely different localities, are against Cambrian or pre-Cambrian age. Two lively symposia were held in December 1944 and 1945 at Poona and at Udaipur, respectively, and a vast literature has accumulated on the subject."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v160/n4075/abs/160796b0.html

Age of the Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range
J. COATES , H. CROOKSHANK , E. R. GEE , P. K. GHOSH , E. LEHNER & E. S. PINFOLD
Nature 155:266-267
"The sections visited were near Khewra in the eastern part of the range, and in the Warcha-Sakesar area of the middle western portion. This examination showed that an Eocene or later age for the Saline Series is irreconcilable with the field evidence, which, in our opinion, indicates that this series is Cambrian or older."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v155/n3931/pdf/155266b0.pdf
Abstract:
"PROF. B. SAHNI'S important observations1 have necessitated a reconsideration of this problem. In order to review the geological evidence on the ground, an excursion was arranged to examine several sections which had led E. R. Gee, of the Geological Survey of India, and other geologists to the conclusion that the Saline Series of the Salt Range is of Cambrian or pre-Cambrian age. Prof. Sahni was unfortunately unable to take part in the excursion, the party consisting of the undersigned."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v155/n3931/abs/155266b0.html

Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab
G. M. LEES
Nature 153:654-655
"I have not had personal experience of the Salt Range, but from a study of the literature and from conversations with Gee, Lehner and others, I find that the regional evidence is strongly in favour of a Cambrian age for the Salt -Marl group. If Sahni's further work establishes beyond all doubt that the land-plant remains really belong to the salt instead of being caught up by it perhaps during the forward thrusting, then the answer may be that there are two salts, one of Cambrian and one of Eocene age."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v153/n3891/pdf/153654a0.pdf
Abstract:
"IN his attempt to establish as Eocene the age of the salt of the Salt Range of the Punjab, Prof. B. Sahni has succumbed to the temptation of generalizing too far from a particular instance. In 1925 I discovered fossil evidence indicating a Cambrian age for the Hormuz Series of the Persian Gulf, and in Consequence I became an advocate for a similar age for the Saline Series of the Salt Range. Sahni now wishes to reverse this result and to make the Persian Salt Eocene but the reaction is not reversible. The Persian salt domes occur in an area which is unquestionably autochthonous and, as they intrude rocks of Middle Cretaceous age in some cases, the salt must be of that age or older. Some of the associated rocks brought up by the salt are of a saline facies, with salt pseudomorph sandstones, gypsum, etc., and the fossil control establishes Cambrian, therefore the presumptive evidence is that the salt is also Cambrian. The map accompanying J. V. Harrison's paper shows the breadth of the normally folded zone and the impossibility of assuming any large-scale thrust faulting. Also the Cambrian, where it appears in normal exposure farther to the north-west, has a similar salty facies."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v153/n3891/abs/153654a0.html

Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir
A. K. GHOSH & A. BOSE
Nature 169:1056-1057
"SINCE the recovery of vascular flora in the Salt Pseudomorph bed (Cambrian) of the Punjab Salt Range, we have continued our investigations with other Cambrian beds in the Salt Range, Kashmir, and Spiti."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v169/n4312/pdf/1691056a0.pdf

Spores and Tracheids of Vascular Plants from the Vindhyan System, India: the Advent of Vascular Plants
K. JACOB, CHINNA JACOB & R. N. SHRIVASTAVA
Nature 172:166-167
"IN a recent paper entitled "Evidence for the Existence of Vascular Land Plants in the Cambrian", by K. Jacob, (Mrs.) Chinna Jacob and R. N. Shrivastava, to be published shortly in Current Science, we have recorded a few spores and fragments of tracheids of vascular land plants from authentic samples of the Neobolus Shales of the Salt Range, the Middle and Upper Cambrian of Kashmir and the Cambrian of Spiti. Some of the spores described there are provided with bladders and in others they are absent, the latter in some cases showing body ornamentation. In this preliminary note we have tentatively referred these spores to the Pteridophyta and the Pteridospermæ; it is possible that some may even belong to the primitive Gymnospermæ."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v172/n4369/pdf/172166a0.pdf

------------------

laconicstudent · Oct 13, 2009

[deleted]

laconicstudent · Oct 13, 2009

catzrfluffy said:
Pollen in the Cambrian...
[insert obscene wall of text with out of context links]

That's nice. Was there a point you were going to make? Or were you spewing a bunch of out-of-context citations on pre-Cambrian plants just for fun?

Rabbits in the Precambrian

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Alunyel

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Alunyel

Guest

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Alunyel

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Alunyel

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Seeker for life, probably

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Lady Kate

Guest

i come bearing .gifs

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency