cambrian death cause

i see. so you're against evolution, but only when it doesn't suit your needs. right. 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? no, decay rates are constant. if something is not constant, it hard to call it a rate.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. so if your death rays made c13, they STOPPED at the end of the cambrian.and i was refering to the uranium lead datings, as well as the other isotopes. much more precise than the c13. ...no. you missed it somewhere.ok. a bunch of layers are laid down. they're folded, tipped, etc, and worn down a bit. then new layers form on top, but horizontally. the layers above the angular unconformity HAVE TO BE YOUNGER than the layers below. that's simple logic.so, lets say that in grand canyon, the precambrian layers are all about 45 degrees, and the cambrian is level. these two layers could not have been laid down at the same time. the cambrian has to be younger. now, let's say in the mojave desert, there's another such unconformity between the lower and upper permian layers. the upper permian and triasic rock therefore had to be laid down after the permian rock, which is well on top of the cambrian rock (separated by a few layers).starting to get the picture? all the rock COULD NOT have been laid down at a single time. i 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. i quoted something that blatantly chauvenistic and pure bigotry, and you agreed with it. he doesn't say men should do the same thing, btw, quite the opposite.

quote:

---

A little meekness never hurt woman or man

---

actually, it is. you're debating science. as far as i can, it's only the creationists that are twisting anything. here's a good test: which camp says the other cannot belong to it? the theory of evolution does not deny god -- many "evolutionist" i know are christians, myself included. however, creationism absolutely precludes evolution for some reason. in fact, i'm willing to bet you'll even go as far as to say i'm not really christian. people have before. but, you know, that's against the whole "judge not" idea, isn't it? blasphemy! the only "science" that says anything about god is creationism, and that's just not science. it's religion. true science should validate god, and since true science doesn't validate your god, you must be wrong.also, evolution allows for creative forces -- it's called "artificial selection." we humans do it all the time to animals. there's no reason to say that god wouldn't use artificial, or "supernatural" selection to produce humans. i bet he'd be really good at it too, knowing the future. no one is saying anything about god. only you. you're trying to build a straw man, and it's not working. you're debating with a christian here. if evolution said something about god, i wouldn't be arguing it. plain and simple.the "they just look similar" argument always gets me. creationists can never find the line when one animal starts being another that just looks similar but was specially created, and when it's the same animal. 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. can you tell these people are just making stuff up as they go along?science has very clear lines. they're called species. and we seem to get new ones all the time.

i see, but the sharks we have today evolved from earlier sharks that were different?we asked for an explanation of how every living cambrian thing died, but left no evidence of any later creature being alive at the time. you have not provided a satisfactory explanation, just more one-liners and silly propaganda.

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.

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.

you're misreading my point. my point was that if there is such a layer in a given location, it is always above the layers "evolutionists" say came before it. never below. because they're constant. maybe you should look up what that means. what the hell does that mean? we're talking about radioactive atoms gaining or loosing various subatomic particles. did you know that 82% of the entire geologic record is pre-cambrian? i guess not. near creation -- hardly. and i wouldn't call that explained by the creationist model. you made conjecture that doesn't fit the evidence, with no support. how? it was in an earlier post, i think in this thread. if not, it's the fossil sorting thread. basically, 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. i think there's a lot more rock there than you know about. because we already determined that they layers had to have been laid down separately. and presuming it was different is also preposterous, even more so actually. the amount of sediment that would have be laid down per day would make recording the relatively minor world flood seem silly. why not right about the hundreds of feet of dirt that pile up everyday and kill everything in sight? you're sitting under an apple tree. an apple falls on your head.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?you're in math class, and teacher tells you 2+2=4. is god involved in the addition process anywhere? most pagans are pantheistic. stop using pagan as a term for "non-christian." the two are not the same. and as far as i can tell, there is no evidence for god. if there was, faith would be immaterial. instead, faith is said to be the very thing that brings salvation. actually, eye-witness reports do not count as evidence. for a number of reasons. people do things like lie, and filling information missed subconciously. take a psych course, and i'm sure they'll tell you about an experiment were even a small sample group will report very different versions of a story, even 15 minutes after seeing a videotape.millions of people eye-witness space aliens, elvis, and bigfoot. it doesn't mean they exist. well, elvis used to. now, that's just ridiculous. i've seen these so called prophesies, and they fail time and again. like the one about tyre being a rock and people not living there anymore? yeah, that didn't work. heck, nostradamus has a lot of prophesies that happened. if you read it the right way.wanna talk archaeological evidence? or rather, the lack thereof?actually, you can't even prove it's god's own record, can you? science doesn't claim to be the truth, it claims to be the search for the truth. when a scientific idea gets overthrown by new evidence, science as a whole adapts. would you rather we just stuck with the religious idea that the universe revolved around the earth?creationism is constantly proven wrong by the evidence. and it has nothing to show for it. it's not willing to adapt to the evidence, and accept what it says. instead, it sits there and tries to pick holes in the evidence, the scientists who discovered it, and basic theory as well. why? for a religious idea, that their reading of the bible is absolutely correct. when people have had more educated understandings of the text for thousands of years.falsifiable conjecture that get validated or disproven is a good thing. it furthers us on a path of understanding. falsified misinterpretations of a book dictating thought is a bad thing. no. no. i checked this one. i translated it personally using a greek dictionary and the septuigint. is says "saved yet by the childbearing if remaining in faith and love and holiness with self-control"by. not from. it says saved BY childbearing. sure. why not. god did it, right? but hey, my axe to grind is with paul, not god. i'm quite thankful for god killing his baby, actually. the point was that it was not divinely inspired. paul's word is not the word of god. paul was not a devil, but he wasn't jesus, and he wasn't god. you should take his advice as that coming from a man, not a deity. if belief has to be literal, i'd say that's about right. the 20% are generally in fields not dealing with biology or geology, like physics and chemistry and engineering.but, hey, i'll start a thread. but the physical evidence falsifies your spiritual belief. and god acting and being alive are two different things. many religions, such as reform judaism, claim god generally stays out of human affairs now in order to make faith a valid decision on the part of man.and personally, i think god acts through natural laws. not only in my mind. in every uranium-lead test done, as well as other various isotopes. it also fits the evidence of the fossil record, overlapping tree ring evidence, etc.what important stuff am i ignoring? the bible? where does it say the age of the earth, pray tell? give me a book, chapter and verse. so far, you've failed to meet any demand for ANY verses. and i've already provided differing opinions on the reading of the bible, including one that explains several inconsistencies, which you rejected outright with no apparent reason. so uh, where? can you tell me? are you using matthew's genealogy, or luke's? one's a lot longer than other. and matthew's misses a few people when you overlap it with chronicles. and how long was it before the first creation day? it doesn't say, does it?hey, let's ask a man whose advise i don't always like what he thinks. the apostle paul says:

quote:

---

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

---

hmm. a week? the bible says a day each. well, were they? you tell me. creationists tend to say they are.

no. they do not say anything of the sort.in fact, i've said before, the big bang should align well with creationism.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-29-2004 02:03 AM

you can take that up with the old-earth creationists.

"constant" means "not subject to change."and before and after what? you've provided exactly nothing in the evidence category. we're talking about ATOMS not ADAMS. and adam didn't change, he was not immortal in the garden of eden. the bible even says so.

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

---

how does this present any kind of change, other than that of intelligence? adam's sin did not bring death into the world; adam was already going to die. the biblical text tells of longer lifespans, yes, until you read it in context and know that in many ancient cultures, great historical figures tended to be given longer lifespans to add to the sense of their importance. yes. about 80% of the history/rock of the earth comes before/below the cambrian. pre-cambrian? you don't even want to know. remember, i was just using a small section of that 20% post-cambrian rock to illustrate a point: that you really have no idea how much rock is there. eh, good question. i don't know off the top of my head. but if it helps, the cambrian period was about 65 million years long, which comprises about 1.5% of whole of earth's history. so it'd only be 1.5% of the total record, if we had all of it in one place. well, i've certainly never seen anything like that happen. it's all well and good to believe a book written thousands of years ago... but why not, say, greek mythology? or norse? it's kind of hard to say such a thing actually happened. you probably meant athiest. they are allowed in court, but they are often HEAVILY refuted. there's cases where rape victims have picked the wrong attacker. eyewitness testimony often has problems.and most of the new testament was written by people who didn't even CLAIM to be eyewitnesses. where was paul during the crucifixion? the john who wrote revelation? luke? we have three books written by people who DO claim to be eyewitnesses, and those are matthew, mark, and john. john is easily refutable, since it contradicts earlier gospels, like mark, on major theological points. so we're down to two.perhaps you should read a little more on the history of the bible. or like, watch one of those history channel documentaries next time they're on. i posted one that has already been discussed here that did fail. it failed so badly you can find a webpage on the tourist industry there. alot of your unerring prophesies are either really vague, distorted by christians to mean something else, or fall under teh excuse of "well, it just hasn't happened yet."do you know why there's a big gap between the life of jesus and the first written gospel? because they expected him to come back within their lifetimes. it was only after 50 years or so, and people started dying off, that the christian churches decided that it would be good write stuff down for posterity. wanna count the existance of the bible as a failed prophesy? yes. and it leavse out chocolate brownies too. and i really like chocolate brownies. so obviously, this truth is missing something, because it doesn't address chocolate brownies.since i'm sure you won't get the point, i'll explain. evolution and the big bang and gravity and whatever don't have much to do with god specifically. they may be addressing how god works, but they're not addressing whether or not he, she, or it exists. it's about understanding how the universe operates, not who's responsible. it keeps it out of nasty fights between different religions.

quote:

---

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

---

biblical chronology is ALWAYS taken from genealogies. that's how the hebrews kept track of things. in this case, the age of the earth at 6000 years or so was first determined by adding up the ages in the line of succession from christ through adam.but you are correct, it is not what is being talked about. however, it applies. i'm not taking things out context anymore than any creationist i've talked to before.paul was actually trying to establish christ as a messiah separate from judaism. this instruction was to ignore the line-of-david genealogies, since they were contradictory and caused too many questions. the idea was to rely on faith, and the teachings of christ, rather than him being related to david, which was in question. well, the must have, considering we have no trilobites in human footprints!ok, jokes are fun and all, but -- trilobites are still marine animals. not land animals.btw. another interesting fact to note: trilobites went extinct in the PERMIAN extinction, NOT the cambrian. in other words, just before the dinosaurs. trilobites ruled the paleozoic era.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-30-2004 02:45 PM

this is why he won't debate biblical question with me. because i've read the bible, and i'm a christian, and i understand it better than he does. and it just doesn't say anything like what he's talking about.