cambrian death cause

quote:

---

Couldn't something with no lungs live in a lagoon, or swamp, or lake, or river, or wetland, or such, for example?

---

Sure. The hard part is keeping the salt concentrations in the body steady while the salt concentrations outside the body fluctuate. Even human blood is close to the salt concentration found in the ocean. Organisms in sea water have to either adjust their physiology to one type of water (saline or fresh) or have physiological mechanisms to deal with both conditions. This is especially true for gilled organisms, since they are separated from the water by only one or two layers of cells. I am not sure if trillies and the like were found in fresh and saline waters. I would venture a guess that most were specialized to one, but probably not both. However, their could have been a few species that were specialized to estuaries where the salinity is in constant flux.

quote:

---

Well, they are in the correct place for me too. (despite evo theory)

---

And despite anything called evidence. Somehow you call evoluton a great leap of faith when it has evidence backing it up, but yet expect me to swallow your speculations that are backed by zero evidence. Why do you expect more from evolution than you ever expect from theories you already accept?

quote:

---

I'll give you guys a hint, since you are falling short here. Imagine how thick the soil was in the cambrian, and how fast, according to my proposed model here, it must have accumulated!

---

I will give you a hint. Show me any evidence that the mechanisms of sedimentation wer any different then than they are now. A proposed model needs positive evidence backing it up. Up until then, it is an ad hoc hypothesis that is used to support a falsified theory. Using ad hoc hypotheses is the first sign of weakness when constructing a theory. If you have to add things which are not evidenced then you are not making a theory but a faith based belief.

quote:

---

Why, it just don't work like that now, under our conditions.

---

Evidence?

quote:

---

Let me rub it in a little here Nedy, the Edenic/cambrian explanation better explains things than anything else so far avalable.

---

The problem is, you don't have a scientific explanation. A scientific explanation requires evidence, of which you have zero. Start with your evidence and move towards a conclusion, I dare you.First explain that mammals were alive at the same time as trilobites.Next, explain how you KNOW the lifespans of creatures differed greatly from what they are now (by many orders of magnitude).Then, explain how sediment formation is drastically different during the cambrian than it is now (by observations, which you lack).Care to take my challenge?

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:

---

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:

---

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!

---

We are talking about mechanisms of sedimentation, not rates specifically. Let's take shale as an example. Shale is a sedimentary rock that, at times, is made up of very, very small particles. For these particles to gather together in such a uniform body requires sedimentation in relatively calm waters. To explain the large layers of shale made up of extremely fine particles we have to assume that there were calm waters for a very extended period of time, a much longer time than the flood year. The mechanism of shale deposition is governed by water density, fluid dynamics, and gravity. All three of these things would have to be drastically different for shale to form in a violent flood, much less multiple layers with different sedimentary rocks in between.In this example, the scope of the flood does not matter. In fact, the violence of the reported flood argues against the formation of shale, yet there it is. So let's assume that there were large amounts of sediment suspended in the flood waters. What happens/ The heaviest particles settle out first, something resembling sand or gravel. What settles out next? Heavier soil particles. What settles out last, and very slowly? Fine particles. What do we see in the fossil record? Sandstones above shale layers, boulders above sand layers. Things are in exactly the opposite layering position than we sould expect from any flood, no matter the degree, volume, or scope. The only theory that is able to explain these alternating layers is slow deposition from varying environments over long periods of time.So now that we see this sedimentary sorting, we also notice that there is fossil sorting. Since it took long periods of time and changes in environment, we should also see a record of the animals that were alive during those times. And we do.Sorry, flood geology does a piss poor job of explaining the fossil and geologic record. In fact, the theories put forward by creationists are falsified by the very rocks that they claim were deposited by the flood.

quote:

---

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!

---

Oh really. Care to explain how we are wrong given that the size of a flood does not change gravity, fluid dynamics, or the density of water?

quote:

---

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

---

Science only states the most accurate model of how the earth, rocks, and life developed. It is only you claiming that science denies the existence of God. If God does exist, then he created through the mechanisms that are described by science, not by a book written 3,000 years ago by scientifically ignorant sheep herders.

quote:

---

Anyhow, so, say you're way up in a flood layer for a minute then, you have as you say something resembling sand or gravel. If this landed on some say, cambrian shale, which was older, then wouldn't we have the sandstones above shale? Then wash in some boulders, and presto, "Sandstones above shale layers, boulders above sand layers"

---

Rinse and repeat hundreds of times and PRESTO, you have the geologic column. However, your problem is not just one layer of cambrian shale, but multiple layers of shale and sediments throughout the geologic column and fossil record that defy a single depostional event. This explanation doesn't work because there are thick layers of shale below boulders and sand beyond the cambrian, and throughout the fossil and geologic record. Your "THE BIBLE HAS TO BE TRUE" can't explain this. It loses, just as it lost 200 years ago when creationists started looking at the evidence.

quote:

---

Since there are no long periods possible, the animals we see in the rcord should jive with what we do know, about the records on paper that go back to the time.

---

So science shouldn't rule out God, but you can rule out long time periods? This seems pretty selective, don't you think?And your right, the animals should jive, but they don't. Of course, inserting you totally unsupported assertions seems ok for you, but for rational people it isn't enough.

quote:

---

Now as far as say the cambrian, where this life/creation explosion was partially caught in the record, why that's another matter, and the reason this model tries to explain it.

---

Oh yeah, the cambrian shure recorded that creation event. It caught the creation of reptiles, bony fish, mammals, amphibians, sharks, flowering plants, grasses. . . Oh, that's right. IT DIDN'T. If you think the cambrian captured the creation event, then humans and a large proportion of the biomass shouldn't be alive today.

quote:

---

What is described by science is only the mechanisms it both can perceive, and touch, and also what it choses to accept.

---

You come close in this statement, but you messed it up in the end. Science accepts what can be percieved by touch, and the other senses through direct observation or inquiry through instrumentation. What is wrong with this approach? If God created the world 6,000 years ago, then you should be able to gather evidence that supports this view through the vestiges of science. Why can't you?

quote:

---

As far as these sheepherders you disdainfully refer to, they were much closer to it than modern science, because they believed in God, which puts them at a wink of time much higher than blinded modern science, and it's chosen philosophy of accepting only the physical.

---

Then why did they believe the sun orbited the earth and the eart was flat? Why did Joshua ask god to stop the sun in the sky when he should have asked God to stop the earth rotating? Why didn't the healers of the time use antibiotics instead of animal sacrifices? If they were scientifically more advanced, why would you prefer an athiest doctor over a local pastor for treatment of an infection? Biblical authors had more scientific knowledge than current science? Bullshit.

quote:

---

Modern science, concerning cosmology, and orgins, would have to reach up to scratch one of those sheepherders heels, when it comes to true science and understanding.

---

Really. Cosmology huh. Care to give me a biblical reference on black hole physics?

quote:

---

The link was in association, that, hey, if a whole man full of atoms, and water, and gook, and brains, etc. can suddenly have a 'decay' rate (ie death, expiry,termination, then, since it possibly happened at the time of the split, why, by extension, would not all physical creation now be likewise affected.

---

Actually, decay rates would have had to been higher in the past to make sense of the data in the field. And by higher, I mean by 1 million percent. If radioactive decay rates were directly linked to human lifespans, then the earth would date to only 4,000 years instead of 4.5 billion years.Also, lifespans have nothing to do with the atoms that make up your body, at least not directly. Lifespans are controlled by your genes. Evidence of this is experiments where genetically engineered mice outlive their normal counterparts by a factor of 3. This same thing has been done in fruitflies as well, except in the fruitflies extended ages were acquired through artificial selection.So, for your lifespan/decay rates argument to work you need to figure out why they would be in direct contrast to each other and the the genetic link between lifespans and genetics.