Zag, I find it almost impossible to understand what you are asking.  Are you asking about existing flora and fauna surviving in the future?  Or are you asking if there was sufficient time for them to evolve into the present state of biodiversity?

I believe he's talking about the little inconsistency of evolutionists who say 'given billion of years' while the Cambrian explosion actually gives a lesser time frame to work with.

It's already noticable I'm not that articulate in my approach to subjects.  I try.  But on this subject I will just give a link for your reading.

Thanks.  I just wasn't quite sure what you were asking.  We are in the midst of a mass extinction event now.  It is not all that different from what has happened a few times in the past on rare occasions, except that this one is caused by us rather than a meteor strike or some such external calamity.  I thought that you might be asking whether we had reached a tipping point beyond which the biosphere cannot recover in time to sustain itself.  Some pessimists out there think that we have already passed the tipping point and that it is too late to repair the damage.  I guess you were really asking whether there was enough geologic time to bring about the present state of biodiversity via evolution.  The scientific consensus is that the Earth has been around long enough to sustain slow evolutionary development.  Human life spans are just so short that we can't quite grasp the lengths of time involved.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Now if I were this bombardier living life trying to survive.. how could I develop this over time?  I guess this kinda was just one tiny example I was thinking about when creating this post.  Just a tease really.

But individual beetles don't do anything to develop evolutionary functionality over time.  It is just that those with more survivable traits tend to produce more offspring and be preferred by potential mates. 

And it seems that some hard core evolutionists became Christians due to the fact that they concluded that these little insects couldn't be given enough time, through evolutionary expanations, survive at all.  The smart minds (way smater than me) conluded that this particular insect was developed instantaniousy... rather than over a long period of time.

What hardcore evolutionists are you referring to?  I am unaware of any conversions of this sort going on.  The bombardier beetle was singled out by anti-evolutionists as an outcome that they felt evolutionary theory would be unable to explain in a gradual stepwise manner.  The page you cited presents the evolutionist case for how it might have plausibly happened.

Dr. Jobe Martin is one person that comes to mind.  But he is not the only one either.

He was never a hardcore evolutionist, was he?  Nowadays, he would be considered a hardcore creationist.  Right?