cambrian death cause

I don't understand this part. Are you saying we have to accept one of your speculations before you'll have a look at it? What are we supposed to be conceding about the cambrian?You get muddier and muddier. Please clarify this.

What are you talking about???There was a period of about 10 million years or so in which we have fossilzied remains of a diversity of life not appearing before. These represent very primative forms of the major phyla extant today.It seems you might be equating this with creation week. That this was the only time of creation is an idea that does not account for the record we see at all. There is a record of ongoing new forms arising, both before and after the cambrian.Exactly what are you suggestion accounts for what we see.Please re summarize just what you are suggesting in this thread? It seems to be getting a bit confused to me. Can you make it in point form, clear and crisp?

Could you summarize your model for the cambrian and pre cambrian times again? I've lost track of what you're suggesting.It seems that one serious challenge is that you have no evidence for your model. You just say that the evidence for it hasn't been found.The other challenge might be that it doesn't explain what we do have but I don't remember you spelling it out in enough detail to determine that.

You know, it seems when you actually make a statment that is clear enough to be checked it turns out you are wrong.Please see:Rolex.org - Rolex AwardsSince the blue whale has reached 30 meters this icthyosaur falls a fair bit short. It is about the size of the larger whales of today but not bigger than the largest.Meanwhile if you want to be clear enough perhaps you can describe what you think transpired before, during and after the cambrian.You keep suggesting that living things of one sort or another were geographically restricted.Do you meant that all life other than microbes was restricted for a long time, then things like trilobite spread over the globe? Then fish did, then amphibians, then reptiles etc.And in each case none of these were current species. Care to explain why that is?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-15-2004 07:12 PM

I'm just trying to understand what the heck you are suggesting.I want you to specify in some detail what you think produced the pattern we see.You have suggested that we don't see any mammals in lower layers because they were, for a time, very restricted geographically. (haven't you? )Is that your explanation for the entire pattern?Since various forms of life are in restricted layers of rock I presume that means you are suggesting that they spread out from somewhere (Eden?) at different times. If not can you describe just what you are suggesting? Or have you now gotten to a bunch of separate creations. That is the pattern that scientists (who believed in Genesis) came to after awhile. They realized that one creation time didn't work so they decided on a series of special creations.However, as they learned more they had to keep adding creation after creation and finally gave it all up as being silly.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-15-2004 09:00 PM

The layers of the Vendian and Cambrian have a succession of life forms in them just like later strata. How much detail do you want? If you google those terms you will find some detail. The trilobites as a group diversified and changed in Cambrian for example. Vendian creatures are restricted to that period.This is the same pattern that pervades the entire fossil record. You say that the cambrian is where creatures came to die. You think it hasn't been refuted yet. Of course, that is a bit difficult since you have yet to describe what the details are.Your explanation so far does not explain the succession of creatures. If your "coming to die" is the only explanation you have then you have to have a series of such comings. Is that what you suggest? Speaking of sounding dumb. You are not only ignorant of biology you are ignorant of history too.These were not "non-believers". Initially they believed in the genesis story. As that became harder to do they made some modifications to try to keep the story as best as they could.All of this happened before Darwin and they were gradually forced to realize that there had, in fact, been changes in life on earth. Any concocting they were doing was to fit with the Bible.You're total lack of knowledge about any aspect of this is amazing. You must have to work very hard at it.

It slowly becomes a bit clearer (and more silly). You are saying that the layers are because some forms didn't die for the 1500 years (or so) before the flood but others did.You seem to be suggesting that some forms took a turn at dieing and then another form did. Is that it?In addition, ALL of one form died while NONE of the others did. Then another set of critters took a turn.Is that what you suggest? Ues. the same tune. The same tune from before and through the Cambrian. The same tune after that to the end of the Cretacious. And the same tune after that.Different creatures appearing at one level and others at levels above them. Small (slightly) different from nearby levels and larger differences from levels further apart. More like current speces at higher levels, less like them at lower levels.No explain why these patters exist. Your explanation so far isn't touching on this pattern. You seem to be saying "it just happened". A bit maybe. But the whole thing, over all the earth? BS!

Why? Why do select creatures die at select times? As in my previous post why are they less like current critters in lower levels? A lot more of them. So far I think you're whole idea has been described by you as:
1) All liveing things were created at once.
2) Almost all stayed in one small area that we haven't found yet.
3) Then some (or all) spread over the whole world. Then only some died out completely and none of the others did. Or if some didn't spread they did after the others died completely.Please confirm this picture. Please describe the approximate size of the restricted area. Describe the location. Describe how forms spread from it and about how fast. If the dieing is the solution then how did all of some die and NONE of others. As Rrhain says "BLINK!".What does this have to do with anything? You might as well have said, "So, pink furred animals like apples more than grass." Your ignorance is showing. What evolutionists were they cowtowing to? It is very clear that you don't study up on much of anything. Your ignorance is indeed showing. Ignorance itself is nothing to be ashamed of, it is a starting point to learning. Willful ignorance is a appalling.

1) Yes, sorry, but 6 days is close enough to at once.2) Any guess on how long they stayed in one place?3) Oh, no so all life didn't stay in one place for awhile. But you just said "possibly yes" to that. So some life was created spread out? But just life extant in the Cambrian? Is that it then
and all the rest were localized?But I thought the localization was why we don't find certain fossils in lower layers? Is that true?But since Cambrian life wasn't localized then all of it should be in all the lower layers. So when did it die? Why did it die?
And why are there layers of different species? You would think? What would you think it might have to say? And why were they winning the day? And who were they?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-16-2004 02:57 AM

And nuts certainly do seem to abound, indeed. It is usually hard to tell what you are saying so I'll check: are you saying alleles are dreams or imagination? I know it seems odd to ask but even this much I wouldn't put past you; I have to check.

That was supposed to be an answer?

You made the above rather odd statement. When asked about it you were incoherently evasive. That is the point.You clearly are terrified of getting "trapped" into agreeing with any basic facts. If you do they will, one at a time, build up and overwhelm your fantasies. You pretend with enomous arrogance to know something about any of these topics are dare to call answers to your fantasies "lies". When the debate actually gets down to details you evade.You have used the word "lies" more than once. Spell out exactly what are the "lies". Be precise, be detailed and be prepared to defend your accusations or retract them.Your are right that it could get off topic here. Please open a thread for it. I suggest "Lies used to support Evolution"This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-26-2004 12:28 AM

You explanation isn't detailed enough to be meaningful. You evade and duck. You may declare some sort of victory but you don't actually have a clue what you are talking about.