cambrian death cause

What's wrong with Adam's rate of decay? If we decay now more than ten times faster, I say this is an indication that there was a pretty universal change. Does this mean Adam's atoms would have been exempt from change in your opinion? Under the spirit/physical split idea I have talked about, where the whole cosmos was affected, even light itself, why would such a seperation not affect decay rates of all kinds? Aside from the usual threats and brething fire, you seem to have nothinh much to add. I reccomend a suspension for Ned, for really not debating at all, and doing it in bad faith as well!!!

quote:

---

First, you have to demonstrate that there was an explosion of life.

---

Hmm. It is becoming clear that evolutionists aare scurring deeper than a pre cambrian 'trace fossil' to try to cahange the story on the cambrian explosion. My model here, where things died would fit nicely with pre cambrian evidence, little (short lived) fossils, burrowers, etc. Only in the assumption of evo;ution without a creator does one run into a dead end.

quote:

---

Second, you would have to show how/why this is somehow unusual/unexpected.

---

Ok so now some evolutionists 'expect' to see life busting out all over for no other reason than they were created?

quote:

---

Lastly, you’d have to show that this is inconsistent with evolution theory.

---

Easy. God making evrything in a New York minute is inconsistant with evolutionary theory, which is, by design, inconsistent with God.

quote:

---

no. they do not say anything of the sort. in fact, i've said before, the big bang should align well with creationism.

---

Say it all you like. The question here it time.

quote:

---

The scientific method is little more than what tends to produce the best results in science.

---

Normally, I would say yes, of course, what else besides the physical matters. But to take such a Popper philosophy to the extreme, where, we always rule out the God, and supernatural we can't see and touch, would leave us neutered of the devine! Take what we can see, fine, but let's not pretend there is no God, and that we are the only gods that count. We need both to come to an understanding of how things work.

SO you didn't like the cut and paste on Popper. Fine. "Karl Popper, following others, argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable; that is, it must be capable of disproof. Difficulties with this have led to the rejection of the very idea that there is a single method that is universally applicable to all the sciences, and that serves to distinguish science from non-science" (Scientific method - Wikipedia)
Anyhow, I think a philosophy, however well intentioned, that says God can not be included in science is fatally flawed! There needs to be some method that allows for an inclusion of the creator. To rule Him out, is like poking out your eyes, and cutting off your nose and putting earplugs on, and then going to Antartica to learn about equatorial bird colors.

quote:

---

It is based in the reasonable, equitable, & consistent idea that if something is false, it should be knowably false.

---

Fair enough, in general, but since we can not prove or disprove God, the best scientific method would be to give Him the benefit of the doubt, and use what we can reasonably, equitably, & consistently discover to put together the puzzle. Otherwise you have all the important pieces missing, and any conjecture as to the true finished puzzle is mere pagan speculation.

[quote] if there is such a layer in a given location, it is always above the layers "evolutionists" say came before it. never below.

quote:

---

because they're constant. maybe you should look up what that means.

---

Before, and after...also some good words to look up.

quote:

---

what the hell does that mean? we're talking about radioactive atoms gaining or loosing various subatomic particles.

---

The reference to Adam's basic changes were to illustrate a change took place. Simply put, if a whole man can go through a change that can result in his decay rate changing rapidly, why not an atom?

quote:

---

did you know that 82% of the entire geologic record is pre-cambrian?

---

Let me try to translate for you here, correct me if I'm wrong. '82% of the dirt, soil, or earth,- despite it's lack of fossils from the kind of massive life explosion in the cambrian, - is in the pre cambrian'

quote:

---

i took the geologic columns of three closely located canyon national parks, joined them at the overlapping areas, and took the average over 6000 years. and that's with rock going only from the cambrian to triassic or so

---

How does this speak to a worldwide average? For example what is the average global thickness of the cambrian, and precambrian?

quote:

---

the amount of sediment that would have be laid down per day would make recording the relatively minor world flood seem silly.

---

Interesting, as it bears on the model here. OK, we would need to know the worldwide average for the cambrian level first. (because if we looked at, say an area of uplift, thrust, continental sliding, or any such extraordinary things, it would not reflect the amount of sediment laid down on average in the cambrian.)

quote:

---

is it safe to say that gravity's weight on the mass of the apple out-weighed the structural support of the tree branch? or did god have to personally break the stem, and then personally apply force downward to cause the apple to fall?

---

Normally, as the believer Newton no doubt understood, there are certain laws we are subject to. There are exceptions. We need to apply reason. Apples fall. People die. Then we need to add God to the picture. We will never die, and rather than falling like apples, we will be able to fly. Elisha flew up in a flaming chariot, normally we can't do this, and if we tried to rule God out, we would neuter our understanding, and be a scientific eunuch

quote:

---

most pagans are pantheistic. stop using pagan as a term for "non-christian."

---

"Related Words
Gentile, Gothic, Philistine, allotheist, allotheistic, animist, animistic, atheist, atheistic, barbarous, bibliolatrous, bookless, chthonian, deceived, disbeliever, disbelieving, ethnic, faithless, fetishistic, functionally illiterate, gentile, grammarless, heathen, heathenish, hoodwinked, idol worshiping, idolater, idolatric, idolatrical, idolatrous, idolistic, ill-educated, illiterate, infidel, infidelic, led astray, lowbrow, minimifidian, misinformed, misinstructed, mistaught, nonbeliever, nonintellectual, nullifidian, paganish, polytheistic, profane, rude, secularist, unbeliever, unbelieving, unbooked, unbookish, unbooklearned, unbriefed, unchristian, uncultivated, uncultured, unedified, uneducated, unerudite, unguided, uninstructed, unintellectual, unlearned, unlettered, unliterary, unread, unrefined, unscholarly, unschooled, unstudious, untaught, untutored, zoolatrous "-1. pagan - a person who does not acknowledge your God " (Pagan | Definition of Pagan by Webster's Online Dictionary)
Go ahead, pick me a better word.

quote:

---

actually, eye-witness reports do not count as evidence

---

Then I guess they are not allowed in court these days. The new testament writers were I believe mostly firsthand witnesses, and though I would disbelieve many others, these are gospel.

quote:

---

prophesies, and they fail time and again

---

Bible ones are unerring. Tried and proven.

quote:

---

science doesn't claim to be the truth, it claims to be the search for the truth

---

A truth that leaves God out. It is therefore truth challenged.

quote:

---

are you using matthew's genealogy, or luke's?

---

I wasn't looking for the Messiah's lineage here, I was talking about creation. We have the dates from Adam, to within a small margin of possible error. Look up some things on chronologies like Usher's.

quote:

---

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith hmm.

---

The age of the earth according to the bible is not even remotely what is talked about here.

quote:

---

well, were they? you tell me. creationists tend to say they are.

---

Sorry, I'm still here in the cambrian, where men tried not to step on trilobites.

Please provide your evidence that
Adam existed. (ha)
that we decay now more than ten times faster.(recorded history)
that there was a split. (every time someone dies, there's a split)
that there is something like your S type light.(Like God, hard to disprove, or prove)
that there has ever been any change in decay rates.(I already talked about Adam's change, I don't think we can prove or disprove atomic ones?)

quote:

---

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

---

This flood here I guess was not in the cambrian? 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"

quote:

---

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

---

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. In this model they jive, it seems quite well, so far at least. They also do the cha cha, twist, and waltz all over the competition.

quote:

---

Science only states the most accurate model of how the earth, rocks, and life developed.

---

Given what it choses to accept as criteria. And what it choses to ignore. Besides these things didn't develop, in the large measure they were created, so trying to understand how they made themselves over time is reduntant. 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.

quote:

---

If God does exist, then he created through the mechanisms that are described by science

---

What is described by science is only the mechanisms it both can perceive, and touch, and also what it choses to accept. Science at it's present state is utterly unsuited for the job on either score. 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. 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.

quote:

---

Science inductively derives a hypothesis, then deductively tests that hypothesis.

---

Well in this case, inductivity and current deductively should be inducted into the hall of shame! Science can't test predict, and deduce the Almighty! Certainly not the kind that rules Him out first anyhow! Science should stick to the little bits it can do, and just accept there is a God, and try to work from there. Don't try to rise above your place in the order of things. The best science can hope for, in it's weak little way, is to humbly try to to work with what He has revealed, not fight against it.

quote:

---

God has no valid evidence of him/her/itself which which to deduce his existence.

---

More than Granny! His Son also banged out miracles left right and center, and raised from the dead to boot. So have most of His writers of the bible, and even some followers over the centuries. The rocks scream out His story, and the heavens declare His glorious creation. So don't blame Him that you can't 'deduce' His existance!

quote:

---

I think what you should be worried about is that god(s) is/are potentially amenable to scientific enquiry

---

Why would I worry about someone's handicap? Pity? Maybe. Besides, I know science will catch up in spades one day under His Personal guidance, and these dark ages will only be humor.

Any evidence you would accept at the same time as granny and the speck, no. But your philosophy and science choices, and evidence opinions, and opinions of evidence, is of no concequence. The thing I would be concerned with is if the model fits first with His revealed word, then, if it fits with real evidence. So far, it does.

I am guessing what you think is stupid is my leaving room for the possibility atomic decay rates could have changed.

The decay of Adam I was talking about was that his lifespan decayed, first from eternal, then to about a thousand years. I never even thought about some direct radioactive decay for the man. 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. Perhaps the wording was fuzzy.

You have no evidence for evolution. What evidence you think you have is only your error in veiwing it the wrong way. What evidence there is, we both have (except for the bible, and creator, which you seem not to want to include) so all that remains is to properly interpret it. This is impossible in your case without the 'book of clues'. Which is why you must resort to childish 'na na na na nya, everybody's against you, evolution's king of the castle' type of arguements.!

quote:

---

That teeny little scientific rule that requires evidence is a problem for you?

---

You can't evidence God physically, so He must be exempt from the usual criteria, otherwise you simply piss in the wind, and get all wet. You may not see Him blowing, but you ignore Him at your own loss.

quote:

---

science requires evidence except for god which it must simply accept as being true. It's not consistent, equitable, or logical.

---

It is the essence of logic, and it is certain science will adapt.

quote:

---

There is no scientifically valid evidence that ANYONE or ANYTHING banged out miracles.

---

Only because johnny come lately so called science, whose underlying philosophy is to count everything out that is of the spirit, doesn't chose to believe eyewitnesses, who gave their life as proof it was true. It is a well known fact that He and they did bang out miracles. Unless you have a time machine, you can't detect this, and have only your disbelief. This does not change the facts, just because there was no real science much to speak of then, unless we count the 'wise men' who were said to purse true knowledge, and it led them smack dab to the Messiah!

quote:

---

Science is a process by which we inductively derive a hypothesis, & with the exception of anything arkathon wants to be true, we must have evidence for & deductively test that hypothesis

---

Since you are so lame at testing for spiritual things, they can not fall under your current scientific handicap requirement of only physical, touchable, etc. Otherwise the fair sounding 'we must be able to test it' becomes nothing in this world more than a filter to filter out God, and His creation. Once they are filtered out, you have insanity, when it comes to cosmology (big bang, speck) and orgins (granny bacteria, mother of all living, and her rodent like offspring who sprung out whales, and all mammals!) Sure you still might be able to come up with nikes, and a bunch of other things, but you may not get out of your little retard bubble in the big picture like that!

quote:

---

as a point of fact, the Dark Ages are long gone & were filled with the kind of christianity you long for.

---

No, they were in as much darkness as the evos in today's retard bubble! Probably more stinky, as they falsely laid claim on God.

quote:

---

he moment you make an exception for something scientifically, it becomes pseudo-science.

---

The moment you don't make an exception to trying to fit the Almighty in a little box of physical criteria, you become science falsely so called!

quote:

---

The reason god can't be included in science is because there's no evidence

---

True, not in the 'physical only' allowed in the retard bubble of course He won't go in there. He's a Spirit! And besides, even though His fingerprints are all over creation, and eyewitnesses coming out of the woodwork, you don't want to acknowledge the evidence in the physical that we do have!

quote:

---

This reduces your argument to being against a scientific methodology that requires evidence.

---

That requires physical evidence for a spiritual God, yes. He's a well known exception to your rules, and philosophy of science.{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}

​

[Note: This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus]