cambrian death cause

quote:

---

are you saying alleles are dreams or imagination?

---

"Alternate forms of a gene or DNA sequence, which occur on either of two homologous chromosomes in a diploid organism"
"Variants of a single gene are known as alleles, and differences in alleles may give rise to differences in traits, for example eye color. A gene's most common allele is called the wild type allele, and rare alleles are called mutants. " http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Gene
Do I think these are real? What difference does it make, unless you chose to interpret it towards evolutionary thought, in which case, as I say, it would be imagination. This I would not put past you!

[quote]If they weren't, then that's a fundamental change in the features {/quote
I'd say a cockcroach or a rat is a fundamental change in features from a human and a whale, so what about it? I raised it as a possibility. Seems like living a thousand years, or living 90 years is a pretty fundamental change for humans as well! Fundamentally, let's face it, there has been a lot of change since the cambrian/eden period.

quote:

---

there are no shark teeth ANYWHERE in the cambrian and precambrian layers. land, sea, wherever.

---

This brings to mind another issue. That is the things you may call 'cambrian' seem possibly to be based on fossils in many cases alone!? If this is true, and, say an ancient sea was pushed up in a seperation of the continents, or something, and it had no "cambrian" fossils (since it was the sea, you know, with sharks and stuff) then how would you know it was 'cambrian' or not? I know this one requires a little chewing, and may be too hard for you to grasp, if so, let me know, so I can slow it down for you.

quote:

---

there's evidence in genesis that god used natural processes to create

---

No doubt, these 'natural processes' you think you may perceive in the bible took millions of years, so He could go ahead and lie about how long it really took?

quote:

---

cursed [is] the ground for thy sake.... Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee....

---

My take on this would be that the ground was now going to require hard work, and no longer the breeze things used to be. I can't see a rational interpretation of this, as being a worldwide dessert! Come on now, that's pretty lame!

quote:

---

So, you deny the basic principles of genetics now, do you?

---

Of course not. Except, of course where they might be attempted to suggest evolution was in effect our 'creator'.

quote:

---

but that's not a connection. that's like saying britney spears and tax day are related

---

Something tells me she pays tax too.

quote:

---

now, where's that from? was that inspired by god, or the devil, would you say?

---

So, first you paste a verse, then ask me if I think the devil may have inspired it? Well, God allowed it, and so who am I to question? Perhaps you may prefer this kind of gal Pr 6 "there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart. 11 (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: 12 Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.)

quote:

---

sounds like an insult to man to me.

---

Not at all, just a fact, because of man's disobedience. Besides, He also said a lot of things more like this Ps 133:3 "As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore." Granny, eat your heart out!

quote:

---

evolution happens today, whether or not were were created 6000 years ago

---

Yes, we could call it that. But to take His processes, and extrapolate it backwards beyond God and reason is another matter altogether!

quote:

---

we just mapped it back until everything was in one point. the time frame of about 15 billion years was actually drawn from the rates of recession currently observed.

---

Ha, now 'we' mapped it back. Yeah, back beyond God-some cockeyed map!

quote:

---

curious, both are rejected by the same people too. i wonder why that is...

---

Because you were taught a lie. However, many who were taught the same lies have found the wherewithal to reject them.

quote:

---

it says we were made from one thing into another through a process.

---

A process lasting 6 days.

quote:

---

does the advice i quoted above?

---

Well, I can take it for what it's worth. My main gripe with your quote is in how the word 'church' is now thought of. As far as women, learning some meekness, I think it's a great idea! Less makeup, more meekness makes for a more hot, sexy, lovely, godly, wonderful, natural chick!

quote:

---

i said a point of yours would make sense if some condition were true, and you said your own point makes no sense at all.

---

Some poor nincompoop trained poster said all mammals including whales came from a small 'rodent like creature'. So it makes only total sense when I say "Actually, I do think it is riddiculous for whales coming from rodents! "! Now if you want to try to harp on the rodent 'like' part, that is really of no concequence, still like a little rat or mouse! 'A rose by any other name, is still a rose'. And you can still smell it!

Well, do you have a point on alleles? As it may relate to the thread? I don't doubt DNA, or many things we know something about, except, as it may attempted to be hijacked by evos, to try to prop up their religion. All I did was post a few definitions of the word, which I thought would indicate I have not yet any qualms about what I read as the definition. Now if you go ahead and put an evo spin on it, why, naturally I may be tempted, if I could, to call you down!

I look at the sum of your post here, and smile that 'mr layers' got nothin at all here. Ha. Let me rub it in a little here Nedy, the Edenic/cambrian explanation better explains things than anything else so far avalable. Come on now, punch, punch, after all the paper bag is even quite wet, can't you poke through?

I think I may have even more than a clue. I may have the key to unlock the mystery. Certainly not though your 'meaty' posts, though! Evolution does not well explain the cambrian explosion. God's creation does! You now have no monopoly on the fossil record. He seems to just have stolen it back?

quote:

---

and yet you're opposed to evolution, which is a change in heritable features

---

Any adapting or evoluting happens under the timeframe of creation, and as a result of things God set in motion, or it does not happen. [quote]The cambrian rocks all look a certain way, no matter if they're horizontal, diagonal, vertical, etc. and they're ALWAYS below ordovician rocks, ....[/quoe]
OK thanks for letting us know how it must always work. So the Burgess cambrian, then must also follow these guidelines?

quote:

---

and radiometric dating.

---

So in the cambrian, how does the c13 date? If there was a big tomic level change around thet time, for example, where things started to die much faster, would not such a change affect the way you measure the present decay rates, etc?
As far as your "ANGULAR UNCONFORMITIES" occur wherever sedimentary rocks have been folded or faulted and tilted from their original horizontal position such as results during mountain building events. If, following mountain building, deposition is renewed on the erosional surface, the new sediments are deposited horizontally and therefore make an angle with the tilted rocks beneath the unconformity surface. (Page Not Found | University of Arkansas)
So it seems to me that we would expect such things if the continents did slide apart somehow, combined with the pre and post flood depositions.
--As far as the day thing, sorry, regardless of the talmud the cambrian mud was filled with life God made in the 6 days. You can seek out someone to argue this with if you want. I don't consider it debatable myself. Even if you can't get your head around the simple 'morning and the evening' We can break it down further. John 11:9 "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?.." Unless you think He was nuts too, and that He really was dead for millions of years, which you interpret the three days to be, then Jesus, and I beg to differ!

quote:

---

go ahead and condemn an entire gender ..

---

You are dreaming. A little meekness never hurt woman or man. You can bag your silly 'oh, he hates women, and Paul was such a meanie, etc' and serve it up to some rodent like creature!

quote:

---

assuming you are god's most blessed creation, at the center of everything, is pride. and a sin.

---

Nonsense. It's a fact. We are tops. How much more blessed can we get, He even commanded eternal life for us. Anyhow what "science" says is not an issue, only what the evo spinmeisters want to twist it into to fit their beliefs, is the issue. That is, that we really, are mere beasts, with animal forefathers, and a Godless past, and future.

quote:

---

science says nothing about god, at all, ever. one way or the other.

---

Baloney! True science is all over the Almighty, like a pig on slop! Those elements of science that omit Him, simply relegate themselves as falsified! Pagan philosophy in the guise of science is a Christ hating farce that is near the end of it's ugly time of existance as anything but an eternal laughing stock!

quote:

---

the mystics actually believed that one facet of god was female.

---

So do I, the Holy Spirit, what about it?

quote:

---

please note we have skeletons of all of those. but that's about half the argument. can you get the rest on your own?

---

Of course, even a schoolchild who knew evolution was a crock could see the old cut and paste 'guilt by association' trip! 'Hey, God's creatures that they show here kind of look like each other, gee they must have just came from each other without God. Cheap insinuations, carefully crafted to muddy creation waters.

quote:

---

now, what was that explanation again?

---

That the life that was fossilized from the cambrian explosion was one of created creatures dying, not evolving from each other.

quote:

---

First explain that mammals were alive at the same time as trilobites.

---

Easy, trilobites, under this model, were extra Eden creations, who had a purpose in being globally spread.

quote:

---

Next, explain how you KNOW the lifespans of creatures differed greatly from what they are now (by many orders of magnitude).

---

I don't throw out the record we were given from the time, by the creator, who vividly, and repeatedly tells us men lived, there, after Eden, to just under a thousand years.

quote:

---

Then, explain how sediment formation is drastically different during the cambrian than it is now (by observations, which you lack

---

Water is needed for sediments. In the Edenic time, we had a world that was new, and that had been exposed, covered, devided from water. Also, under there was water, and atleast for a time in the early creation stage, a mist did come up. Then we have a world of cambrian life, worms, etc, who operated in the (often super saturated?) (possibly not super densely packed down?) new planet. Obviously there is a large amount of discussion on this topic possible, but the evolutionary model is not the only one. Only by omiting God can it even be considered, and then, only by faith, as there is no concrete evidence.

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:

---

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.

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.

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!

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.