> But that doesn't mean that the Moon is only 600 million years
> old. You can't use that to disprove that it's almost as old as
> the Earth.
But where did I say the Moon was only 600 million years old? Why would someone suggest the Moon was only 600MYA when lunar rocks have been found 1 billion years older than the oldest found on Earth? Hmmm, isn't that interesting....
> Nope, not ignoring it at all. What I'm saying is that it wasn't
> really an "explosion"; those life forms clearly had to have an
> ancestor further back that for whatever reason we don't know
> about yet. And there are probably plenty of species we'll
> never, ever know about, either Cambrian or Precambrian, simply
> because we don't have the fossils.
But you are actually, because if 70-90% of all life on Earth died prior to the Pre-Cambrian explosion, which scientists are pretty sure it did, this is an equally valid reason no fossils are found-they were dead. But regardless, repeating myself again, no one is disputing the fact the Pre-Cambrian explosion happened, the debate is over the extent of the existence of intermediary forms which speaks to the suddenness of the transition not the "explosion" itself. Again: [burgess-shale.rom.on.ca]. Here, let me help you not read:
Something fundamentally changed in Earth history at this time which seems to have been directly related to the mass extinctions.Quote
The presence of large, soft-bodied, putative animals (problematic as they may be) in Ediacaran seas does indeed make the "explosion" appear less abrupt. But the fact remains that the Early Cambrian was a time of major change in marine animal communities and environments, with the rapid and unprecedented advent of disparate new body plans and novel ecological niches. By the end of the period, every major animal phylum was firmly established, and life after the Cambrian was radically different from what had gone before. So it is safe to call this event an "explosion" - it was crucial to the evolution of life on Earth as we know it.
> But we don't know if that's typical. Just because Earth/Moon is
> the only one we have direct knowledge of doesn't mean other
> systems are the same.
We do know it is typical, if not the rule, in our solar system and if you actually follow these links I provide and read what they say you might see that some scientist believe it is typical. Again:[www.space.com];
> Of course we do--and we could be wrong.
Yes, we may be wrong, and likely are about many things as history proves again and again, therefore it is in our best interest to consider all possibilities. The Universe is vast beyond comprehension and as we are now finding proof we are but one universe out of many:[phys.org]. Space and time are infinite yet you claim to know what is and what isn't possible based on your understanding of the human experience, an ignorant spec of sand in the ocean of time. If you think the simple idea the Moon is artificial is "crazy", I recommend not even bothering with "real" science:[news.techeye.net]
> Got proof?
There is no "proof", only evidence. This is how hypothesis are formed. If you are interested in the subject I have provided links above in other posts you can refer to.
> I think you just missed the point.
I don't think so.
Post Edited (28-Jan-13 22:10)