In the from dust to dust idea, the former nature was such as that man (and most animals) would return to dust too fast to leave remains.
Describe the physiology necessary to accomplish that, and yet have dinosaurs still fossilize.
There are several known features of the former world nature that stand out in stark contrast to today. The long lifespans for example.
-_- the long lifespans in the bible have no evidence supporting that they ever occurred.
We need not know what caused man to live longer. I do not need a model, which basically means looking at the present nature and trying to use that to explain things.
You do need a model if you are even trying to make a hypothesis for this. How can you stand to spout concepts you can't even fathom the function of and expect other people to treat you seriously?
Not even sure why I should feel a need to speculate. The only thing that matters is science doesn't know.
When all evidence contradicts your position, it hardly makes it a valid position to hold just by virtue of the fact that the nature of science demands that no theory can 100% be certain to be true. I could have a duck in my arms, a degree in Ornithology, and even genetically sequence the duck and have the genes match known duck sequences, and still couldn't consider myself 100% certain that the organism I was holding was a duck. -_- that doesn't make it reasonable to conclude that holding any other position is logical in the slightest.
However since you seem to think guessing is some sort or requirement, I guess anyone could do that.
That's kinda how testable hypotheses are developed. You observe a phenomenon and then propose a possible, testable mechanism of how it works based on the information you have. Hypotheses aren't shots in the dark, though.
Perhaps one big reason could have been that in that fast reproducing world of yesterday, many types of bacteria, and mold, and insects, and small animals and etc etc would have then specialized in certain kinds of animal disposal. Even today, we see the snotworm specialize in certain whale remains, if I recall.
-_- why would said decomposers be able to efficiently digest a human and not a dinosaur? What physiological differences could make the dinosaur more resistant to rot? Why is it that every single modern organism you think lived alongside dinosaurs had the same rotting problem?
Your basic concept makes so little sense that it demands further explanation; if you can't provide any, then no one should ever address your point ever again because it is a crime to even validate you with a response.
Possibly add to that chemical reactions that would have occurred at death. We do not even know what sort of genetics man had at the time. We do not know if there could have been something in our bodies that no longer exists? We do not know what would be the exact reactions chemically in that former nature...etc.
Name a biological chemical that would cause bodies to rot so fast that not even a tar pit could maintain them and mud couldn't retain an imprint. Because in case you haven't noticed, not all fossils need the organism to refrain from rotting. Heck, footprint fossils don't even need the organism to be dead, so how do you explain the lack of human footprints in the same layers as dinosaur footprints (all claimed examples of such are confirmed fakes)?
Ever notice that the traits you attribute to "previous state humans" are weirdly similar to classical vampire traits? Like disintegrating upon death, extremely long lifespans, and extreme sensitivity to radiation from the sun (one you've suggested in previous conversations), etc.?