the other evolutionary explosion

[gnostic]

YES YES YES

LOL I remembered it as the atlantis explosion, and of course couldn't rind it when I tried to look it up. Avalon is a port in Atlantis, no?

Er...Port?

What are you talking about??? * scratch head *

 

[shunyadragon]

So let me get away from the name of the era for a moment, if possible. Whatever it's called, would you say it was there before animals? How do you figure?

Before the Ediacaran Avalon explosion of diversity and complexity of animals and plants there were more primitive forms animals and plants.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So let me get away from the name of the era for a moment, if possible. Whatever it's called, would you say it was there before animals? How do you figure?

the Avolon Explosion.

 

[gnostic]

Whatever it's called, would you say it was there before animals? How do you figure?

Before the Cambrian (eg , the only “animal” were marine invertebrates in the last Precambrian period, Ediacaran, like primitive sponges.

More complex invertebrates with exoskeleton, like aquatic arthropods, did start appearing until the Cambrian period.

In fact, animals or more precisely marine animals have even predated plants, and I am referring to land plants.

Primitive land plants evolving from algae (especially green algae) didn’t exist until the Ordovician period, mostly as primitive ferns, and plants didn’t start diversify until the Silurian period. And these early plants didn’t flower.

So essentially marine life - referring to aquatic animals predated land plants, which make the order of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 wrong, scientifically and biologically.

 

[YoursTrue]

the Avolon Explosion.

So please be brief insofar as you know it. Was vegetation before animals? Thanks.

 

[gnostic]

So please be brief insofar as you know it. Was vegetation before animals? Thanks.

If you read my previous post, the answer is no.

Animals exist in the seas or oceans before land vegetation.

Sponges predated even the Cambrian period (the last Precambrian period called Ediacaran period).

Arthropods like trilobites exist in the Cambrian period.

The first land plants existed in the Ordovician period, but there were no trees.

The oldest fossil of a tree was dated to the Middle Devonian period, but it didn’t bore flowers. Around this time, primitive amphibians already exist.

Around the Carboniferous period, reptile-like creatures started to exist.

Flowering trees did exist until the Cretaceous period. In this period, true birds started to flourish, but became even more diverse after the extinction of dinosaurs.

 

[YoursTrue]

Before the Cambrian (eg , the only “animal” were marine invertebrates in the last Precambrian period, Ediacaran, like primitive sponges.

More complex invertebrates with exoskeleton, like aquatic arthropods, did start appearing until the Cambrian period.

In fact, animals or more precisely marine animals have even predated plants, and I am referring to land plants.

Primitive land plants evolving from algae (especially green algae) didn’t exist until the Ordovician period, mostly as primitive ferns, and plants didn’t start diversify until the Silurian period. And these early plants didn’t flower.

So essentially marine life - referring to aquatic animals predated land plants, which make the order of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 wrong, scientifically and biologically.

I doubt that. Can you prove it beyond conjecture?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you read my previous post, the answer is no.

Animals exist in the seas or oceans before land vegetation.

Sponges predated even the Cambrian period (the last Precambrian period called Ediacaran period).

Arthropods like trilobites exist in the Cambrian period.

The first land plants existed in the Ordovician period, but there were no trees.

The oldest fossil of a tree was dated to the Middle Devonian period, but it didn’t bore flowers. Around this time, primitive amphibians already exist.

Around the Carboniferous period, reptile-like creatures started to exist.

Flowering trees did exist until the Cretaceous period. In this period, true birds started to flourish, but became even more diverse after the extinction of dinosaurs.

So what about giraffes? No trees so no giraffes?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you read my previous post, the answer is no.

Animals exist in the seas or oceans before land vegetation.

Sponges predated even the Cambrian period (the last Precambrian period called Ediacaran period).

Arthropods like trilobites exist in the Cambrian period.

The first land plants existed in the Ordovician period, but there were no trees.

The oldest fossil of a tree was dated to the Middle Devonian period, but it didn’t bore flowers. Around this time, primitive amphibians already exist.

Around the Carboniferous period, reptile-like creatures started to exist.

Flowering trees did exist until the Cretaceous period. In this period, true birds started to flourish, but became even more diverse after the extinction of dinosaurs.

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that marine animals like fish existed before plants on the earth with animals that ate plants on the earth (like cows and sheep)? Sea animals such as fish generally do not eat grasses and wheat, right?

 

[Audie]

I doubt that. Can you prove it beyond conjecture?

Considering the weird n wacky conjectures
called Facts by Christians- on the scrawniest
scraps of evidence, we suspect a rather
unfair double standard.
Then too, nothing is ever "beyond
conjecture", an ad hoc impossible
requirement.
The fossil record does show
a progression of forms so detailed
that no semblance of a reasonable
explanation other than ToE has ever
been advanced
Conjecture, of course could hold
the fossils are fakes from Batboy's
secret lab, and that Jesus was invented by
4th century Flumidh monks.

A lot easier than faking evolution
evidence
Fact is there's a long sorry
history of fake Christian "relics".

Turn it around and find one
fact, anywhere, contrary
to ToE. Tell us. If it's real,
you win.

You will can never do it.
And without one fact you have nothing.

 

[gnostic]

I doubt that. Can you prove it beyond conjecture?

I am not a palaeontologist, so I am only giving you general information about when when each of these life formed and when, which are all based on the timeline of the oldest fossil occurrences of the each organism.


You can look them up yourself.

But what you have written about giraffes, fishes, sheep and wheats (your 2 posts below), only demonstrated you have study a single thing in biology:

So what about giraffes? No trees so no giraffes?

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that marine animals like fish existed before plants on the earth with animals that ate plants on the earth (like cows and sheep)? Sea animals such as fish generally do not eat grasses and wheat, right?

You are not either not paying attention to what I have written, or you don’t understand what I have written.

Yes, fishes are sea animals, but if you actually read what I had written, I didn’t mention fishes.

I wrote that marine life exist before land vegetation, and I GAVE TWO EXAMPLES, both are aquatic invertebrate organisms:

1. Sponges
2. Trilobites

Neither of these marine animals are fishes, YoursTrue.

I don’t know what sponges taxonomic group to (as I am neither paleontologist, nor a marine biologist), but they certainly predated fishes, as do trilobites.

Trilobites are extinct marine arthropods, not fishes, like crustaceans of what crabs, lobsters, prawns, etc. Arthropods also exist on lands, and you would know some of them better as spiders and insects.

Arthropods are invertebrates, but they have hard shells called exoskeleton.

There are lot more invertebrates, both extinct and extant, living in waters or lands, but fossils of these primitive sponges and trilobites predated fishes, land animals and vegetation.

And I didn’t say anything about fishes eating plants, so this is strawman accusation, meaning you are saying what I didn’t write.

I wrote that plants exist in the Ordovician and Silurian periods, but these primitive plants don’t exist as trees. The oldest fossil of extinct tree, dated back to the middle of the Devonian period, but trees didn’t become abundant until the following Carboniferous period and later, but none of trees have flowers, not until the Cretaceous period.

SECOND. You brought up giraffes, sheep, etc.

While primitive mammals (Jurassic and Cretaceous periods in the Mesozoic era) and primitive birds (only in Cretaceous) existed during the times of dinosaurs , their numbers and their species weren’t as they are now. Mammals and birds only started to diversify in multitude of species and in number during the Cenozoic era, when the dinosaurs became extinct at the end of Cretaceous.

Giraffes, cows, dogs, cats, horses, sheep, and primates (including the genus Homo, which all human species) don’t exist during the Mesozoic era (from Triassic to Cretaceous), and certain not in the Paleozoic era (from Cambrian to Permian).

So your comments/questions are rather silly.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So please be brief insofar as you know it. Was vegetation before animals? Thanks.

Yes. But that was long before what we are talking about.

 

[gnostic]

So please be brief insofar as you know it. Was vegetation before animals?

Yes. But that was long before what we are talking about.

Land animals...too close to say...but probably, yes. Definitely before mammals, birds and dinosaurs.

But aquatic animals...no.

Marine life are animals too, during the Cambrian period, and those definitely predated all land vegetation.

According to YoursTrue ‘ belief in Genesis creation, vegetation occur before ALL life (both aquatic and land animals), being created on the 3rd day.

In fact, Genesis 1 say that that vegetation was created even before the sun and moon (4th day), which are scientifically wrong.

Genesis (on the 5th day) also say that were created birds AT THE SAME TIME as all marine creatures, which are not true based on the fossil evidence of both the early fishes and early birds.

Birds didn’t exist when the oldest fossils of bony fishes were discovered.

And birds didn’t predate land animals. Early primitive amphibians walked the earth, before there were birds. Early primitive reptiles, primitive mammals and dinosaurs all predated the earliest fossils of birds.

So Genesis is also wrong about birds being earlier than land animals.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Land animals...too close to say...but probably, yes. Definitely before mammals, birds and dinosaurs.

But aquatic animals...no.

Marine life are animals too, during the Cambrian period, and those definitely predated all land vegetation.

According to YoursTrue ‘ belief in Genesis creation, vegetation occur before ALL life (both aquatic and land animals), being created on the 3rd day.

In fact, Genesis 1 say that that vegetation was created even before the sun and moon (4th day), which are scientifically wrong.

Genesis (on the 5th day) also say that were created birds AT THE SAME TIME as all marine creatures, which are not true based on the fossil evidence of both the early fishes and early birds.

Birds didn’t exist when the oldest fossils of bony fishes were discovered.

And birds didn’t predate land animals. Early primitive amphibians walked the earth, before there were birds. Early primitive reptiles, primitive mammals and dinosaurs all predated the earliest fossils of birds.

So Genesis is also wrong about birds being earlier than land animals.

There were marine animals even during the Avalon explosion (before the Cambrian).

I am not interested in using Genesis 1 as a science book or history book. It is a myth, meaning it is not historical but true -- it teaches us values and a cultures deepest eternal truths. It is not meant to be factual. I am completely uninterested in any discussion surrounding the use of Genesis 1 to form any timeline of the order of the appearence of various groups of animals or the like.

 

[gnostic]

There were marine animals even during the Avalon explosion (before the Cambrian).

I am not interested in using Genesis 1 as a science book or history book. It is a myth, meaning it is not historical but true -- it teaches us values and a cultures deepest eternal truths. It is not meant to be factual. I am completely uninterested in any discussion surrounding the use of Genesis 1 to form any timeline of the order of the appearence of various groups of animals or the like.

And I accepted that your view differed from that of YoursTrue’s, even though both you and YoursTrue accept the Bible in respective religions.

YoursTrue (like some other Christians, or more precisely Young Earth creationists) take the Genesis more literal than Jews do.

The problem with creationists like YoursTrue, they want to make Genesis to fit in with modern sciences, and when they don’t creationists tried to make as sciences being wrong, while ignoring the evidence.

Most Jews don’t. Jews tends to try to keep sciences and religion separate.

 

[Audie]

And I accepted that your view differed from that of YoursTrue’s, even though both you and YoursTrue accept the Bible in respective religions.

YoursTrue (like some other Christians, or more precisely Young Earth creationists) take the Genesis more literal than Jews do.

The problem with creationists like YoursTrue, they want to make Genesis to fit in with modern sciences, and when they don’t creationists tried to make as sciences being wrong, while ignoring the evidence.

Most Jews don’t. Jews tends to try to keep sciences and religion separate.

We don't associate Jews with a culture of
anti intellectualism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most Jews don’t. Jews tends to try to keep sciences and religion separate.

And it shows. Go look at the amazing jewish track record of nobel prize winners in the sciences.
Jewish ethnicity is ridiculously overrepresented.

 

[YoursTrue]

There were marine animals even during the Avalon explosion (before the Cambrian).

I am not interested in using Genesis 1 as a science book or history book. It is a myth, meaning it is not historical but true -- it teaches us values and a cultures deepest eternal truths. It is not meant to be factual. I am completely uninterested in any discussion surrounding the use of Genesis 1 to form any timeline of the order of the appearence of various groups of animals or the like.

So then the genealogy is not accurate also, is that your take on it?

 

[YoursTrue]

There were marine animals even during the Avalon explosion (before the Cambrian).

I am not interested in using Genesis 1 as a science book or history book. It is a myth, meaning it is not historical but true -- it teaches us values and a cultures deepest eternal truths. It is not meant to be factual. I am completely uninterested in any discussion surrounding the use of Genesis 1 to form any timeline of the order of the appearence of various groups of animals or the like.

Meantime, land animals and sea animals are a bit different, wouldn't you say? Since you know more about evolution than I do (names & order and all), I guess sea animals that stay underwater their whole lives, had to eat food that was in the ocean. You can discount Genesis all you want, please do say if science determined that sea animals came before land rovers. Thanks.

 

[Audie]

Meantime, land animals and sea animals are a bit different, wouldn't you say? Since you know more about evolution than I do (names & order and all), I guess sea animals that stay underwater their whole lives, had to eat food that was in the ocean. You can discount Genesis all you want, please do say if science determined that sea animals came before land rovers. Thanks.

Ask why nobody has ever been able to
find one fact contrary to ToE, or think of
any alternate theory consistent with the facts.

Might ask yourself that too.