cambrian death cause

and that purpose was? why the trilobites and not, say, cows? my bible sure doesn't say anything about some creatures existing only in eden and others not.sounds more like everything was made all over the earth, except man who god only made one of. but you're willing to ignore the simple fact that many ancient peoples, including the hebrews, used a different order of magnitude for people or great importance.some sumerian kings ruled for 28,000 years, for instance. but, oh, i'm forgetting, the bible is the ONLY ancient document that's literally correct.

quote:

---

my bible sure doesn't say anything about some creatures existing only in eden and others not.

---

Adam and Eve existed only in the garden when they were first created.

quote:

---

and that purpose was? why the trilobites and not, say, cows?

---

I don't know. My guess is that it likely had something to do with preparing the earth for man (and the animals?)to spread out, and populate the world. Wormy things make more sense for this type of job than cows!

quote:

---

Sounds more like everything was made all over the earth,

---

This was what I would have thought, until I gave it a little reflection, and saw that this does not fit the evidence. Therefore, I would suppose is is a very widespread conception among bible believers.

quote:

---

but you're willing to ignore the simple fact that many ancient peoples, including the hebrews, used a different order of magnitude for people or great importance.

---

Yes. I am comfortable with Jesus' version.

quote:

---

some sumerian kings ruled for 28,000 years, for instance.

---

With bozos at the helm of such purported record keeping, why look any deeper into the hogwash?

quote:

---

My guess is that it likely had something to do with preparing the earth for man (and the animals?)to spread out, and populate the world. Wormy things make more sense for this type of job than cows!

---

Which day of creation were the wormy things made? At most, the trillies had less than 5 days to prepare, hardly enough time. However, my experience with cattle is that they release more fertilizer in one day than the same number of trillies. That, and I never heard about Cain or Abel using trillie manure to fertilize their fields. Oh, that's right, they had flocks of sheep, some of which were killed and used as sacrifices. We also have the expulsion of man from the Garden, from which they took their stock animals and farm products (grasses such as wheat and barley). Also, the stock animals also needed large areas of grasses and to graze on. Therefore, we should see grasses and mammals in the cambrian, and we don't, because they were shown in the Bible to live outside of the Garden.

quote:

---

what's exceptional about the burgess shale is that it is one of the rare examples of fossilization of soft-bodied organisms that were alive in the cambrian era. what's your point?

---

I've seen the mountains involved. I've seen the geologic jigsaw that makes up the mountain. I was wondering mainly if you were saying the layers you said were always above it, and below it were here too. Also, if all cambrian material in the world 'always' 'looks' just like it.

quote:

---

no, decay rates are constant. if something is not constant, it hard to call it a rate.

---

I would hope they are constant. Question is, could all the stuff going down, right down to the atomic level back around the 'split' , and the introduction of death to the cambrian/Eden world-have altered the rate? The concern here is not what the rate is now.

quote:

---

i don't know what your point is about the c13. perhaps we're not too clear on what the record holds. there's a DROP in c13 at upper boundary of the cambrian layer.

---

The point was that there was a big change globally in something (I think, at least) evo logic says can be used to date things. Could there be a connection with the split, or even just the 'curse'. If not, why not? If so, then we would have to have a little information on the pre split universe, and the newly created planet here, to see the difference. So far, all we can see is this end, and how it now works.

quote:

---

and i was refering to the uranium lead datings, as well as the other isotopes. much more precise than the c13.

---

The split would have done the job here too!

quote:

---

all the rock COULD NOT have been laid down at a single time.

---

So what? Did you think it was? Edenic cambrian layers were not, for example, under this scenario, laid down at the same time as flood layers. Etc. Of course we have many layers.

quote:

---

i see. scientific theory -- up for debate.

---

Why would theory not be up for debate? Anyhow it was mainly the talmud the quote you posted was addressing. Is that more scientific for you?

quote:

---

i quoted something that blatantly chauvenistic and pure bigotry, and you agreed with it.

---

You are entitled to your opinion on the bible. It don't amount to a hill of beans, but you are entitled to it.

quote:

---

i'm willing to bet you'll even go as far as to say i'm not really christian.

---

No, I don't think it matters that much about our thought on orgins, as it would our thoughts on Jesus. We'll all find out one day. Unless of course the majority of evolutionists, who are not believers, were right, and Heaven, spirits, God, and all are all bogus.

quote:

---

Baloney! True science is all over the Almighty, like a pig on slop! "blasphemy!"

---

You must have missed the point here. In other words, true, genuine, non God-omitting, truth seeking, scientists, are very concerned with God in every aspect of their work. In this parable, the scientists were the pig, and the science the slop. Where is this supposed to be blasphemy? In essence saying God must be included in science.

quote:

---

true science should validate god, and since true science doesn't validate your god, you must be wrong

---

Just because men can not see spirits, and Heaven, and God, means only that they are scientific knats, compared to God. It does not mean the supernatural does not exist at all. Besides, if it was true science, they would not be starting from the premise there was no God, then going on trying to validate their belief.

quote:

---

there's no reason to say that god wouldn't use artificial, or "supernatural" selection to produce humans

---

Yes, there is a reason. He's not artificial! He made a work of art, us, and all the universe, in a week!

quote:

---

for instance, the 4.5% genetic varience between us and neanderthals makes us basically the same thing, but the 4.5% between us and chimps makes them something else.

---

I'm not famiiar with the arguement, but I'd go with the creo-boys on this. Unless the neanderthals were some type of monkey, or ape, then common sense need enter into play. Only evo thinking would imagine otherwise. What if someone said we share dna with an onion, or some worm fesces? Does this mean momsy was a tomato?

quote:

---

science has very clear lines. they're called species

---

God has very clear lines to. Most of them are written in the bible! His lines have men and monkeys, and cockroaches, and rats, as different.

pure bollocks - you may as well say "maybe the green dragon fairy did it". Go and read a basic science book. The process says NOTHING about God, nothing at all. Science is not the practice of trying to prove or disprove anything about God. Zeus by his very nature is untestable and beyond the reaches of science.They don't started from the premise "there is no god", that's just warped fundie thinking.

quote:

---

Which day of creation were the wormy things made? At most, the trillies had less than 5 days to prepare, hardly enough time.

---

What is it you think cambrian life did in one day? No one said trilobites prepared the garden of eden, where men and beast were placed. God did that.

quote:

---

However, my experience with cattle is that they release more fertilizer in one day than the same number of trillies.

---

So you feel the new planet needed more cows, and less worms. Fine. Apparently, though, since that isn't How He did it, you are missing some important things in your decision making here.

quote:

---

Oh, that's right, they had flocks of sheep, some of which were killed and used as sacrifices.

---

Let's say they were in the garden for around 300 years. Now they leave, there are lots of animals, and people too! Just because the bible does not mention other children, I believe there were plenty. After all, how can you live in a garden with a naked women, and a commandment from God Himself to multiply, for, as in the above example, 300 years, and not have plenty?

quote:

---

We also have the expulsion of man from the Garden, from which they took their stock animals and farm products (grasses such as wheat and barley).

---

Good point. Now if one imagines some strict aparteid wall of iron into the sky all around the garden, and a God who was inactive, this might make some sense. He knew they were leaving Eden, and preperations were made. No, not as many as would have been, if man had more naturally spread out of eden, without the curse, and split. I would envision the area around eden as ready for man, with some work, needed, of course. Tilling the land was one of the first orders of business. We really would need some clear picture of the world at the time to jump to any conclusions. For example, if the area around Eden was a huge valley, surrounded by mountains (even the smaller mountains many say were in the pre flood world) and the earth's soil was far different than now, (super saturated, or/and loose packed, etc) Then soil rates of accumulation, deposition, would be much different. Such a huge valley could be covered, as the centuries drew on. Remember the human life span was almost a thousand years. If it was a low lying area then, being covered by deposits, imagine how deep it could be now! So many scenarios, so little time. Unlike boring evolution, no getting stuck in a garden with nude women, one lousy Godless scenario, and so much time!

quote:

---

Go and read a basic science book. The process says NOTHING about God, nothing at all.

---

Christian science books would. Perhaps if the more pagan ones did also, they would not come up with granny and the cosmic creator speck! Perhaps also, they might be now advanced enough to at least begin to perceive the known spirit world! As it is, it seems about all you folks can muster up is pronouncments that there is no supernatural. Yes, we know, to admit there is, like probably 90% of the planet does, is 'not scientific'. Well, science is changing, and will change this sick, limiting line. What amounts to a pagan cult laying claim on all knowledge and discovery! The spiritual pauper who thought up the scheme about 'based upon physical evidence' left out the bigger picture! And present so called scientific ways, are not gospel! "However, Popper's doctrine of "falsifiability" has some fatal problems. It is itself a theory, and supposedly a scientific theory, and therefore it applies to itself. This means that if it is true, we can never verify that it is true! " http://members.aol.com/Philosdog/Popper.html
"Popper, in other words, thought that a theory cannot be proved right, only wrong. A theory becomes scientific by exposing itself to the possibility of being proved incorrect. " Home – Physics World
So, if you don't like a split between the spirit world, and the physical, and can disprove it fine. If you can disprove Eden, fine. You can't. So green fairy dragon stuff don't cut it.

you really are a bit of a tool. You totally miss my point, science does not say that the supernatural does not exist - it does not say anything about it either way!

quote:

---

You totally miss my point, science does not say that the supernatural does not exist - it does not say anything about it either way!

---

If we do not say the spirit does not exist, then how come we say the spirit (or anything) can only be proved by physical observation?! That's like saying we are studying dead people, but only live people are allowed in our study!

looks like we're gonna play the "you must have zero reading comprehension" game, where i copy what you wrote, and then reply by re-posting the message it was in reply to. the next statement was:

quote:

---

sounds more like everything was made all over the earth, except man who god only made one of.

---

actually, cows would have worked better. so... fitting the evidence actually matters to you now? because the REST of your crazy idea still doesn't fit the evidence. why don't you take a bio class, and a geology class, and then take a paleontology class and see the evidence for yourself. and see what fits. you've already grossly misrepresnted his words in this thread. so that statement is very ironic. but living 900 years when 90 would have ancient... well, with such bozos at the helm of that purported record keeping, why look any deeper into that hogwash? really?

you're reading my words wrong. depth from the surface doesn't determine age. different areas have different ages of rock exposed, since erosion is not uniform (as the case would be with a flood). however, the geologic column always goes in the same order. no. it could not. decay rates are constant. the cambrian extinction is not a unique event. mass extinctions happen all the time. there were three during the time of the dinosaurs alone. how do you explain those? what is this split you keep talking about?and radiometric dating is done using the proportion of parent isotopes to daughter isotopes. the only way to make things appear older with uranium-lead dating is to magically add more of the particular isotope of lead (207 or 208 depending on which method), which ONLY comes from uranium decay. well, if they were laid down separately, that's about a foot and half of sediment per year if we're only 6000 years old. i did the calculations on that earlier, were you around?i think it's pretty easy to observe that a foot and a half of sedimentation is not happening around the world every year. that's nice, read the rest.

quote:

---

see. scientific theory -- up for debate. but don't touch the religion we're bashing it with! there is more than one reading of genesis, and the explanation about days it took god to tell moses makes sense: it explain why god is in speaking mode as opposed to creating mode.

---

yes, scientific theory is up for debate, and should be. but by qualified scientists, not by people with nop education in the sciences and preset religious beliefs that don't even fit the book they'e basing it on. since you're objecting to it for blatantly religious reasons, i think the religion should be for debate too. that's not an opinion. paul says women should shut up, stay at home, do housework, and not correct their husbands. and that they're saved by childbirth, being their function. that is chauvenism, point of fact. whether or not i agree with it.and it does amount to something. it shows that that particular section was not inspired by the same person who let a sinning woman wash his feet with her tears, and repent, and then forgave her sins -- not by childbrith.it is a blatant contradiction. i don't think it's fair to say that the majority of "evolutionists" are athiests, any more than it is to say the majority of christians are creationists. i don't have the statistics on that. your original statement said "True science is all over the Almighty, like a pig on slop" so:True science:The Almighty:ig:Slop.you called god slop. or a pig, not sure which. either way, it's blasphemy. especially considering that pork isn't kosher. ok. one more time. science does not start with the premise of the nonexistance of god. the only premise it makes regarding the supernatural is that natural laws exist, and it is not the hand of god acting that makes things happen every time.but my statement was this. the indepently confirmed age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. this matches all of the evidence. if the bible said the earth was 4.5 billion years old, we could count that as a confirmation validating the scripture.curiously enough, the bible doesn't state an age of the earth. you don't understand what artificial selection is, do you? it's when an outside intelligent force influences the breeding of animals, their genetics, and various selective processes. no. nor does it mean momsy was a chimp or a neanderthal. this a standard creationist misconception. not every relation is parental. there's a lot of people i share about 99% of my genes with, and they're not all my ancestors. one is my brother, about 17 are cousins, 9 are aunts or uncles. i am not directly descended from any of these people.but. we share about the same percentage of genes with a neanderthal as we do a chimpanzee. creationists claim one as the same as us, and the other as something completely different. how do you justify that?and for the record, we are not descended from neanderthals. we actually coexisted with them. we shared a common ancestor at some point.

quote:

---

We really would need some clear picture of the world at the time to jump to any conclusions.

---

That is all you have done so far, jump to conclusions. You don't even worry about evidene, you just jump to something that resembles the Genesis story and call it proof. We have a picture of the type of organisms alive during that time, it is called the fossil record. That fossil record lacks fish, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and especially humans. Therefore, they weren't around. It is up to you to supply evidence that they did, not stories about a garden and longer lifespans.

quote:

---

For example, if the area around Eden was a huge valley, surrounded by mountains (even the smaller mountains many say were in the pre flood world) and the earth's soil was far different than now, (super saturated, or/and loose packed, etc) Then soil rates of accumulation, deposition, would be much different.

---

And your evidence for the existence of the Garden, the Mountains, the Different Soil, the Super Saturation (from a mist no less), and Different Rates of Deposition and Accumulation? Or, how about those sedimentary rocks are exactly the same as the ones we see building up now. They are no different in any aspect, and so we conclude that the action of their accumulation is no different than it is now. What characteristic of soil can change so that it can create the same sedimentary rock but through totally different mechanisms? Care to share that nugget of knowledge with us any time soon?

quote:

---

Remember the human life span was almost a thousand years.

---

[sarcasm]No, I'm only 30 years old[/sarcasm]Seriously, no one does. Even the biblical author of Genesis (Moses) did not witness these extended life spans. They are mythical, but they do teach theological lessons. You seem to want the talking animals so that the lessons in Aesop's Fables are legitimate. You miss the point that Aesop's Fables teach valuable lessons whether or not animals are able to talk.

quote:

---

Unlike boring evolution, no getting stuck in a garden with nude women, one lousy Godless scenario, and so much time!

---

I don't know about you, but when I look around at the women in the world today I think evolution did quite well. Of course, if the fundies had their way, we wouldn't have Playboy. How boring is that?

quote:

---

since erosion is not uniform

---

So does this mean the (capitalized) "always" is subject to some erosion you think may have taken place? If so, since it's a big world, with lots of erosion, it seems it would really not be 'always, then would it?

quote:

---

it could not. decay rates are constant.

---

Yes, I think we determined they were pretty constant. So then, what is the reason that nothing in heaven or earth could have affected, in the past, these now constant rates? I guess this would mean, also, by your account, then that Adam's rate of decay was constant, and he never had any change?

quote:

---

the cambrian extinction is not a unique event. mass extinctions happen all the time.

---

Of course there have been extinctions since then. Nevertheless, this explosion of life appeared in our record, and being near creation time is handily explained by a creation model.

quote:

---

what is this split you keep talking about?

---

Good question. I shouldn't assume people have read the 'speed of light' and 'bulletproof' threads over in cosmology. The concept refers to the spirit and physical worlds being seperated by God. Try to peek at a couple of posts there to get the jist of it. So, if this happened, it seems like it would have caused the aging process, and some major change in decaying, and aging.

quote:

---

well, if they were laid down separately, that's about a foot and half of sediment per year if we're only 6000 years old. i did the calculations on that earlier,

---

Interesting. How was this determined? Also, is this a global average? (Of course we would expect drastically different rates of deposition in the past.)

quote:

---

i think it's pretty easy to observe that a foot and a half of sedimentation is not happening around the world every year

---

No, I would not think so. Why would it? After all, we have no worldwide flood, mist coming out of the earth instead of rain, freshly made planet of unpacked down soil, etc. etc. now, that I am aware of, and what about it? Should we project today's world conditions on the Edenic, and flood world's?

quote:

---

since you're objecting to it for blatantly religious reasons, i think the religion should be for debate too.

---

Ruling God out of all equations, unless you can 'reach out and pick His nose with your finger' is not science. It is merely selective chosing of criteria, and knowledge that best fits with the pagan outlook, not acknowledging all evidence. Not just what your religion of evolution calls evidence. Billions of witnesses constitute evidence. God's Own record of the world from day 1, backed up with thousands of 100% proven correct prophesies constitute evidence. (more than the ever changing stories of so called scientific conjecture-you know the universe is a billion, now 3 billion, now 25 billion years old-black holes would do this but alas, now we imagine it is something else!-extinct fish from the fossil record that still swim! etc.).

quote:

---

paul says women should shut up, stay at home, do housework, and not correct their husbands. and that they're saved by childbirth, being their function

---

There's a time for all of us to quiet down. Now what is this getting saved by childbirth business? I understood he was talking about they will be saved FROM a hard labor, and childbirth, if they try and please Him. Anyhow, I don't think killing their babies will much save them either, would that be less chauveninistic to you? Sounds like you got an axe to grind.

quote:

---

it shows that that particular section was not inspired by the same person who let a sinning woman wash his feet with her tears, and repent, and then forgave her sins

---

So because a gal loved Jesus, and was grateful, this means the apostle was some devil, because his opinion on women was perhaps colored by some bad experience? The bible shows man like he is, and women, and doesn't try to gloss it all over. Nevertheless, through it all, His message is pretty clear, and can be put into place by weighing it out in balance with other areas of the bible. There is no doubt He loves all mankind, both sexes.

quote:

---

don't think it's fair to say that the majority of "evolutionists" are athiests,

---

Look into it, I think it was on this forum that I heard some numbers on this. Also, my experience tells me the majority are not bible believers. I could be wrong, but I think it was something like about 80% of modern scientists were non believers?

quote:

---

the only premise it makes regarding the supernatural is that natural laws exist, and it is not the hand of god acting that makes things happen every time.

---

So you say the premise then is that God is not acting (alive)-and that natural laws exist. Well, I say natural laws exist as a result of the Hand of God, and that the spirit world is bigger than the physical in importance. Therefore we ignore it all at our peril, and to then call it science and all else unscientific relegates that little physical, God ignorant, spirit blind, set of information, to near irrelavance!

quote:

---

the indepently confirmed age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. this matches all of the evidence.

---

Only in your mind, and by excluding the important stuff!

quote:

---

curiously enough, the bible doesn't state an age of the earth.

---

In effect, by listing the years, it does pretty well do just that, though not in a sentence.

quote:

---

you don't understand what artificial selection is, do you? it's when an outside intelligent force influences the breeding of animals, their genetics, and various selective processes.

---

As long as the processes don't deny that He outright created them in a week, fine. I guess any after creation tinkering, if there was any, would be the artificial stuff. Like if He called certain animals into the ark, with the breeding outcome in mind.

quote:

---

and for the record, we are not descended from neanderthals. we actually coexisted with them. we shared a common ancestor at some point.

---

If they were men, we shared a common ancestor, yes. If not, no.

quote:

---

I don't know about you, but when I look around at the women in the world today I think evolution did quite well.

---

I suppose that gives a piece of tail new meaning!

quote:

---

Or, how about those sedimentary rocks are exactly the same as the ones we see building up now. They are no different in any aspect, and so we conclude that the action of their accumulation is no different than it is now.

---

Conclude? Conclude that there was a sea back then? We know this. By the way, are we talking about cambrian sediment here that is exactly the same? It seems to me if sedimentary rocks were formed, say, in the flood, even though they may look just like some formed today, there was a great difference in degree, and volume, and scope! So if we 'conclude' that today a rock formed at one centimeter a year, therefore, it must have taken millions of years, we would be absurdly wrong!

quote:

---

Seriously, no one does. Even the biblical author of Genesis (Moses) did not witness these extended life spans. They are mythical, but they do teach theological lessons.

---

Granny and the speck are mythical, and teach lessons too, that God was not there, as He says, but is a phoney.

You are either very stupid (which is forgivable) or you are not debating in good faith. Tell me which on it is, please.If the second, this is your last warning before you get a suspension for not engaging in honest debate.