From Cambrian to Permian in the Bible.

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,025
60,512
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.

2. Then, a lot happens in the most recent 500 million years. A lot! There are tons of invertebrates (mollusks and arthropods) and some fish, the vertebrates, appear. “The Ordovician Period was also characterized by the intense diversification (an increase in the number of species) of marine animal life in what became known as the Ordovician radiation. This event precipitated the appearance of almost every modern phylum….The end of the Ordovician was heralded by a mass extinction, the second largest in Earth history.”
Ordovician Period (geochronology) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

3. Not only was animal life far more diverse, but the organisms were far larger than the diminutive forms of the Cambrian. “A Giant Orthocone was a nautilus that resembled a squid in an ice-cream cone… They existed 470-440 million years ago in the Ordivician period… They had crushing tentacles at up to 6 feet long and ate anything it could, including sea scorpions. It was the top predator of the Ordivician seas. Giant orthocone - Sea Monsters Wiki

a. The development of skeletons favored larger and larger predators. “With an estimated size reaching 10 meters and its powerful crushing jaws, Dunkleosteus was the top predator of its time, the Late Devonian.”
Dunkleosteus terrelli - Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals

4. The Carboniferous and Permian, 300 million years ago, saw changes from fish, to amphibians, to reptiles. Walking between the early trees of these periods were the dinosaurs. And some tiny mammals.






5. Does the science agree with the biblical ordering?
“20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

a. “…water teem with living creatures…” and ‘…great creatures…” meaning big, and ‘teeming,’ meaning variety.
Seems the author of Genesis hit the nail on the head.





6. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.”
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.

a. “The Scofield Reference Bible … containing the traditional Protestant King James Version of the Bible, it first appeared in 1909 and was revised by the author in 1917…. which advocated the "gap theory," fundamentalists began a serious internal debate about the nature and chronology of creation.” Scofield Reference Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The gap theory is not a new theory. It was first introduced in 1814 by Scottish theologianThomas Chalmers in an attempt to reconcile the six-day biblical creation account with the newly defined geologic ages being set forth by leading geologists of that era.”
What Is The Gap Theory - Exploring Gap Creationism, The Ruin-Reconstruction Theory






7. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….

I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.”
Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.





"...a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future..."

...or, divine intervention?
 
From the cited work on the Gap Theory:

As you might have guessed, biblical support for the gap theory is extremely thin. In fact, both the Bible and scientific theory contradict the construct on various points.

What Is The Gap Theory - Exploring Gap Creationism, The Ruin-Reconstruction Theory

I'm not asking you to support the gap theory, merely pointing out that there are attempts, even among fundamentalists, to incorporate a timeline different from a strict six-day narrative for creation.

The series of OP's on the chapter one of Genesis show the agreement as to the sequence of events.

The question remains: a guess?
What are the odds?
 
Well, as the recorded voice in the London 'underground' says, "Mind the gap!"
 
The OP has adopted the well worn practice of losing an argument in one thread, and then running off and starting a new thread based on the same losing argument, except now what proved the argument wrong in the first place is left back in the old thread.

Many a rightwinger has based their entire internet forum presence on such nonsense.
 
The OP has adopted the well worn practice of losing an argument in one thread, and then running off and starting a new thread based on the same losing argument, except now what proved the argument wrong in the first place is left back in the old thread.

Many a rightwinger has based their entire internet forum presence on such nonsense.

So....you really can't dispute the premise.

No surprise, as it merely adds new material to others you couldn't handle.
 
The OP has adopted the well worn practice of losing an argument in one thread, and then running off and starting a new thread based on the same losing argument, except now what proved the argument wrong in the first place is left back in the old thread.

Many a rightwinger has based their entire internet forum presence on such nonsense.

So....you really can't dispute the premise.

No surprise, as it merely adds new material to others you couldn't handle.

The only premise seems to be "maybe God did it". Since this is a science forum, the only proper response is "so what"!
 
The OP has adopted the well worn practice of losing an argument in one thread, and then running off and starting a new thread based on the same losing argument, except now what proved the argument wrong in the first place is left back in the old thread.

Many a rightwinger has based their entire internet forum presence on such nonsense.

So....you really can't dispute the premise.

No surprise, as it merely adds new material to others you couldn't handle.

The only premise seems to be "maybe God did it". Since this is a science forum, the only proper response is "so what"!


It's a math question, konny...

...and mathematics is the language of science.

Again?

What are the odds of the writer of Genesis 1 just happening to name the events in the order that modern science finds correct.....


Don't you like math questions?
 
So....you really can't dispute the premise.

No surprise, as it merely adds new material to others you couldn't handle.

The only premise seems to be "maybe God did it". Since this is a science forum, the only proper response is "so what"!


It's a math question, konny...

...and mathematics is the language of science.

Again?

What are the odds of the writer of Genesis 1 just happening to name the events in the order that modern science finds correct.....


Don't you like math questions?

Correlation does not equal causation. The mathematics of string theory is internally consistent, but as yet on one has proven any of it to be true. Therefore, the most that can be said about the Bible is "lucky guess".
 
The only premise seems to be "maybe God did it". Since this is a science forum, the only proper response is "so what"!


It's a math question, konny...

...and mathematics is the language of science.

Again?

What are the odds of the writer of Genesis 1 just happening to name the events in the order that modern science finds correct.....


Don't you like math questions?

Correlation does not equal causation. The mathematics of string theory is internally consistent, but as yet on one has proven any of it to be true. Therefore, the most that can be said about the Bible is "lucky guess".

1. "Correlation does not equal causation."
Who said anything about causation?


2. "The mathematics of string theory..."
Who said anything about the so 5-minutes-ago string theory?
I speak of probability.


3. " "lucky guess".
Now....let's remember your answer here.
I'll write a few more OPs on the subject increasing the sequence in Genesis 1, and you try to be consistent with the answer "lucky guess."

Deal?
 
So you want to take the creation mythology of a small group of Middle Eastern goat herders and present it as science. Since Native American religions stress how connected all life is, are we to credit them with knowledge of DNA?

If this helps you square up your religious beliefs with reality, that is fine. But for the rest of us, what you are presenting is silly.
 
Therefore, the most that can be said about the Bible is "lucky guess".
You gotta admit that was one heck of a "lucky guess" for an illiterate goat herder.......... :cool:

I think that some give a lot more credit to a "lucky guess" than years of scientific inquiry. That's why the thread isn't about science. One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it. That isn't science. Some will say that's what evolutionists do, but that kind of thinking ignores the changes to the theory, since the time Darwin promulgated it.
 
Therefore, the most that can be said about the Bible is "lucky guess".
You gotta admit that was one heck of a "lucky guess" for an illiterate goat herder.......... :cool:

I think that some give a lot more credit to a "lucky guess" than years of scientific inquiry. That's why the thread isn't about science. One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it. That isn't science. Some will say that's what evolutionists do, but that kind of thinking ignores the changes to the theory, since the time Darwin promulgated it.



"One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it."

Now, konny....why are you bringing 'global warming' into this?




But, since you brought it up....the conclusion of my research proves that show causes global warming!

And....my solution: i've been throwing aspirins into the toilet to decrease the Earth's fever.
 
You gotta admit that was one heck of a "lucky guess" for an illiterate goat herder.......... :cool:

I think that some give a lot more credit to a "lucky guess" than years of scientific inquiry. That's why the thread isn't about science. One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it. That isn't science. Some will say that's what evolutionists do, but that kind of thinking ignores the changes to the theory, since the time Darwin promulgated it.

"One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it."

Now, konny....why are you bringing 'global warming' into this?

But, since you brought it up....the conclusion of my research proves that show causes global warming!

And....my solution: i've been throwing aspirins into the toilet to decrease the Earth's fever.

Where did I mention global warming exactly? Not in this thread! YOU brought it up in another thread. So for those who missed it and in deference to your apparent "senior" moment, the notion that man could effect climate was promulgated at least 100 years BEFORE temps could be accurately measured on a global scale. Your attempt make that an example of putting the cart before the horse doesn't withstand close scrutiny. TRY AGAIN!!!
 
I think that some give a lot more credit to a "lucky guess" than years of scientific inquiry. That's why the thread isn't about science. One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it. That isn't science. Some will say that's what evolutionists do, but that kind of thinking ignores the changes to the theory, since the time Darwin promulgated it.

"One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it."

Now, konny....why are you bringing 'global warming' into this?

But, since you brought it up....the conclusion of my research proves that show causes global warming!

And....my solution: i've been throwing aspirins into the toilet to decrease the Earth's fever.

Where did I mention global warming exactly? Not in this thread! YOU brought it up in another thread. So for those who missed it and in deference to your apparent "senior" moment, the notion that man could effect climate was promulgated at least 100 years BEFORE temps could be accurately measured on a global scale. Your attempt make that an example of putting the cart before the horse doesn't withstand close scrutiny. TRY AGAIN!!!



Why, of course you did!

Didn't you claim: "One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it. That isn't science."

It's the very definition of global warming!


Here....see for yourself:

Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian


 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.
 
"One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it."

Now, konny....why are you bringing 'global warming' into this?

But, since you brought it up....the conclusion of my research proves that show causes global warming!

And....my solution: i've been throwing aspirins into the toilet to decrease the Earth's fever.

Where did I mention global warming exactly? Not in this thread! YOU brought it up in another thread. So for those who missed it and in deference to your apparent "senior" moment, the notion that man could effect climate was promulgated at least 100 years BEFORE temps could be accurately measured on a global scale. Your attempt make that an example of putting the cart before the horse doesn't withstand close scrutiny. TRY AGAIN!!!



Why, of course you did!

Didn't you claim: "One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it. That isn't science."

It's the very definition of global warming!


Here....see for yourself:

Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian


 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

You're confusing 'conclusion' with 'hypothesis'. You claim I mentioned global warming, but I don't see a cite to where I did. I certainly haven't mentioned it in this thread. That was my point. You're pulling things from other places without citation and confusing the issue. I know what I've said, but you should show a little consideration for those that haven't read the other thread.

As for ideological conviction, that mainly comes from the skeptic/denier side. They can't deny the fact that some gases absorb and then re-emit energy, so they have to make a political issue out of what should be a straight scientific endeavor. The question of AGW hasn't been 'if' for a long time, rather it's 'when' and 'how bad'.
 
So....you really can't dispute the premise.

No surprise, as it merely adds new material to others you couldn't handle.

The only premise seems to be "maybe God did it". Since this is a science forum, the only proper response is "so what"!


It's a math question, konny...

...and mathematics is the language of science.

Again?

What are the odds of the writer of Genesis 1 just happening to name the events in the order that modern science finds correct.....


Don't you like math questions?

But, whoever wrote the bible, didn't name the events in the order that modern science finds correct, and there are two genesis accounts, which contradict eachother, so your premise fails to get off the ground at all. I've pointed this out to you, but you don't seem to care. You just reload and reassert the same thing, over and over again.
 

Forum List

Back
Top