Your Second Brain Is Your Gut

[Brightmoon]

That's where you're wrong similar to atheists are usually wrong. Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon who was a creation scientist. He believed in creation and founded science to honor God. Sir Isaac Newton was another. Most of the greatest scientists in the past were creation scientists. Einstein wasn't a creationist, but he was a pantheist.

Today, creation scientists are shunned by the atheist scientists and cannot get their work peer reviewed. If they come out as creationists, then they could lose their jobs. Thus, a young person who decides to become a creation scientist as opposed to a secular or atheist scientist, then they can only get jobs with creation organizations. They will be ostracized. Many who believe in creation hide their creationism. It's worst in biology, geology, paleontology and zoology where evolution is practiced.

To the contrary, creation scientists present more observational and experimental science regarding creation. It's evolution that is practically all historical science. Very little real science. For example, if humans came from apes or monkeys, then why do we not see the evolution today? This is a valid question. Instead of studying the apes or monkeys, we just get a BS historical (forensic) argument, questionable fossils that most people don't really care about and outright fraud. They do not study why monkeys and apes are not bipedal. It seems that bears are better at being bipedal. Why do we not get the actual study of the physiology of apes and bears and bipedalism? I don't think there was a study on bipedalism in animals. Just bipedalism in apes/monkeys. That seems like the false science of fitting the findings to the ToE.

. Most mammals can at least stand on their hind legs and take a few steps . Some vertebrates are/were obligate bipeds aside from us ;most dinosaurs are bipedal. You’re wrong by the way, you just don’t read scientific literature . Creation science stuff is woefully inadequate when describing current or even past research

 

[Brightmoon]

People who were trained by creationist organizations usually cannot do science which is why they rarely get hired . They most likely get fired for incompetence . They might be intelligent but they’ve been taught wrongly and have a tendency to think stupid ideas about nature is faith. You can excuse anyone who was born before the 1900s because being known as an atheist then was a guarantee that you’d lose your livelihood. Even modern atheists are abused like that in some American cities

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

People who were trained by creationist organizations usually cannot do science which is why they rarely get hired . They most likely get fired for incompetence . They might be intelligent but they’ve been taught wrongly and have a tendency to think stupid ideas about nature is faith. You can excuse anyone who was born before the 1900s because being known as an atheist then was a guarantee that you’d lose your livelihood. Even modern atheists are abused like that in some American cities

'Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”'

 

[Jimmy D]

Today, creation scientists are shunned by the atheist scientists and cannot get their work peer reviewed. If they come out as creationists, then they could lose their jobs. Thus, a young person who decides to become a creation scientist as opposed to a secular or atheist scientist, then they can only get jobs with creation organizations. They will be ostracized. Many who believe in creation hide their creationism. It's worst in biology, geology, paleontology and zoology where evolution is practiced.

There aren't many flat-earthers working in the satellite industry either.

There aren't many YECs working in the oil industry either... or are there? What's this?.....

Creation Science in the Petroleum Industry


Zion Oil & Gas, based in Dallas, is a publicly traded company that believes it is commanded by the Bible to search for oil in Israel, both to help the Holy Land and make money for investors. The 22 employees of Zion Oil in Texas and Israel, and many of its 30,000 investors, believe the company is on a mission from God.....


....“God creates this. He provides the money and the place where to drill. Now why we haven’t got the oil yet, I don’t know. I have never drilled one oil well I didn’t expect to find oil,” says John Brown, Zion founder & CEO.

He’s a hulking, 73-year-old evangelical Christian who went to Israel, had a religious experience, came back and sold his business in Michigan, then started Zion with no prior experience in the oil industry.

Zion has so far drilled four wells in Israel, all of them dry holes, which is disappointing because in recent years wildcatters struck a huge natural gas field off the coast of Israel.


Zion’s motto is “geology confirming theology.” Brown believes the Book of Deuteronomy alludes to an Israeli oil bonanza.

[…]

Never mind that three Old Testament scholars consulted for this report say the ancient Hebrew word in Deuteronomy is olive oil, not petroleum. Zion is undeterred in its mission.

One last excerpt:

Zion Oil is listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. Since going public in 2000, the company has burned through $130 million. According to Morningstar, Zion’s stock has lost 90 percent of its value in the past five years.

 

[Larniavc]

I think this finding clearly is evidence that what we find of our physiology had intelligence behind it. God's designs are complex and has intelligence behind it such as DNA.

What’s so amazing about the enteric nervous system? It’s not as if it’s something nobody knew about till now.

Part of the reason anxious people get IBS.

 

[Gene2memE]

The Cambrian Explosipn is how every current complex phylum appeared all together at one time in the fossil record.

Really? Fascinating that you think so.

Do land plants - all 10 phyla of them - not count as complex? Do byrozoans not count as complex?

This contradicts what Charles Darwin hypothesized with his ToE of long time and slow, slow, slow evolution of lifeforms.

Hey, Darwin was wrong about LOTS of things. So was Wallace. Does that overturn their central point of descent with modification, brought about by differential reproductive success rates?

The Darwinists went uh, uh, uh as they were dumbfounded. They stated that this was 540 million years ago and claimed it was the Big Bang of life.

No, they weren't.

Darwin hypothesised that there was significant, complex life prior to the Cambrian:

From the sixth edition of On the Origin Of Species (pp285-286):
"There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Cambrian and Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Cambrian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character.

Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. Here we encounter a formidable objection; for it seems doubtful whether the earth, in a fit state for the habitation of living creatures, has lasted long enough.

Darwin's thinking was actually correct here - and his "allied difficulty" has been solved for decades (at least three). The Ediacaran biota has all sorts of creatures - some easily recognised as still extant groups (sponges, algae, protists, bacteria) and some more difficult to classify (possibly molluscs, cnidarian, worms or lichen) and dozens of species in their own phyla all together.

I should put in a disclaimer here that significant new forms of life came into existence, but only sponges (SpongeBobSquarePants?) did not appear.

I'm not sure about your language here. Are you arguing that sponges were the only pre Cambrian phyla, or that sponges are the only new phyla to come into existence after the Cambrian?

Both would be wrong.

Quoting from: Animal evolution: Sponges really are oldest animal phylum

Date: December 1, 2015
Source: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen (LMU)
"Sponges (Porifera), comb jellies (Ctenophora), the true jellyfish and corals (Cnidaria) and plate animals (Placozoa) together make up the so-called non-bilaterian animals. All four phyla are evolutionarily ancient, and were already in existence more than 600 million years ago."

Furthermore, there is not fossilized evidence of life, except for sponges, just below the Cambrian layer. Atheist scientists claim this is due to contamination. Above the Cambrian layer, no new species ever appears.

Sure there is, are you ignorant of the entire Ediacaran biota?

 

[Jimmy D]

To the contrary, creation scientists present more observational and experimental science regarding creation.

What do you mean by experimental science, can you link to any specific examples.

It's evolution that is practically all historical science. Very little real science.

Is it "historical" when it's applied to medicine or agriculture? How does it stack up to "creation science" in that regard.

For example, if humans came from apes or monkeys, then why do we not see the evolution today?

Actually we do.

This is a valid question.

Is it?

Instead of studying the apes or monkeys, we just get a BS historical (forensic) argument, questionable fossils that most people don't really care about and outright fraud.

You know, there is an area of science called "biology", right? It studies all kind of wonderful things like anatomy, genetics, etc.

They do not study why monkeys and apes are not bipedal. It seems that bears are better at being bipedal. Why do we not get the actual study of the physiology of apes and bears and bipedalism? I don't think there was a study on bipedalism in animals. Just bipedalism in apes/monkeys. That seems like the false science of fitting the findings to the ToE.

The General Phenomenon of Bipedalism
E. Lloyd Du Brul

Adaptations for Bipedal Locomotion of Lizards
Richard C. Snyder

Parallel Emergence of True Handedness in the Evolution of Marsupials and Placentals
AndreyGiljov

I could go on, there are thousands.... Why would you make such a claim (that there are no studies) when you've got no idea if it's true or not? Do you really not care?

 

[jamesbond007]

You keep saying this, I asked you where you got this information from.

The Burgess shale fossils were discovered in 1909, he'd already published work on Cambrian fossils.

Look at this book he wrote in 1910.

So I ask again, where are you getting this information from?



What do you mean?




Obviously it wouldn't fit some flood "theory", they lived in water you know.

And the fossil record shows...

Whether you disagree with the dating of geological strata or not fossils are still found in a particular order, how does this evidence special "creation" and a global flood as you claim.

Look at your chart and you'll see how short Cambrian is. No evolution possible. Next, there no common ancestors there.

Why? Do you not trust me ha ha?

SI NMNH Centennial - Charles Doolittle Walcott and the Discovery of the Burgess Shale (1909)

Your claim that fossils are found in a particular order isn't true. What is the evidence for this? To the contrary, the evidence shows that these creatures happen to die where they were. Besides, we find catastrophes happened which changed the face of the Earth. Neither are the millions of years based on radiometric dating is true. Bad assumptions.

Sure, it fits a global flood theory if they became extinct. That's how they were all place in one layer with short time. Not only that, they found marine fossils up in the mountains, such as Mt. Everest, above sea level. Were Cambrian fossils found there? Yep.

 

[jamesbond007]

Really? Fascinating that you think so.

Do land plants - all 10 phyla of them - not count as complex? Do byrozoans not count as complex?



Hey, Darwin was wrong about LOTS of things. So was Wallace. Does that overturn their central point of descent with modification, brought about by differential reproductive success rates?




No, they weren't.

Darwin hypothesised that there was significant, complex life prior to the Cambrian:

From the sixth edition of On the Origin Of Species (pp285-286):
"There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Cambrian and Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Cambrian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character.

Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. Here we encounter a formidable objection; for it seems doubtful whether the earth, in a fit state for the habitation of living creatures, has lasted long enough.

Darwin's thinking was actually correct here - and his "allied difficulty" has been solved for decades (at least three). The Ediacaran biota has all sorts of creatures - some easily recognised as still extant groups (sponges, algae, protists, bacteria) and some more difficult to classify (possibly molluscs, cnidarian, worms or lichen) and dozens of species in their own phyla all together.



I'm not sure about your language here. Are you arguing that sponges were the only pre Cambrian phyla, or that sponges are the only new phyla to come into existence after the Cambrian?

Both would be wrong.

Quoting from: Animal evolution: Sponges really are oldest animal phylum

Date: December 1, 2015
Source: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen (LMU)
"Sponges (Porifera), comb jellies (Ctenophora), the true jellyfish and corals (Cnidaria) and plate animals (Placozoa) together make up the so-called non-bilaterian animals. All four phyla are evolutionarily ancient, and were already in existence more than 600 million years ago."



Sure there is, are you ignorant of the entire Ediacaran biota?

I'm not getting into the details as it does not refute my points. There isn't an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion due to long-time and common ancestor. Moreover, now the scientists are saying thedr creatures went extinct. How did the fishes appear then? We also find these Cambrian fossils and fish fossils very high in the mountains. How did they get there?

 

[Jimmy D]

Why? Do you not trust me ha ha?

I do trust you, I just think that you’re getting erroneous information from your sources.

There is nothing about Walcott in any way keeping his discoveries under wraps or discarding them because the don’t fit in with the TOE, that’s what I’m questioning.... because it didn’t happen.

 

[jamesbond007]

I do trust you, I just think that you’re getting erroneous information from your sources.

There is nothing about Walcott in any way keeping his discoveries under wraps or discarding them because the don’t fit in with the TOE, that’s what I’m questioning.... because it didn’t happen.

Nice. I answered your questions, but you just ignored and discarded how Cambrian evidence destroys evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

Nice. I answered your questions, but you just ignored and discarded how Cambrian evidence destroys evolution.

So he didn’t do those things you claimed?

I’m glad that we’ve got that out of the way.

I’ll get back to you about your other claims when I’m back on my PC.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm not getting into the details as it does not refute my points. There isn't an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion due to long-time and common ancestor. Moreover, now the scientists are saying thedr creatures went extinct. How did the fishes appear then? We also find these Cambrian fossils and fish fossils very high in the mountains. How did they get there?

Can I ask if you ever do any reading about the subjects you mention above, outside of creationist literature?

I mean no offence but you can find answers to your questions on many mainstream science websites and in popular books.

There is nothing in your post that doesn’t have a fairly straightforward evidence based explanation.

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm not getting into the details as it does not refute my points.

Well, they do.

There was complex life BEFORE the Cambrian
Other forms of complex life developed AFTER the Cambrian

There is sufficient time for a rapid morphological diversification DURING the Cambrian. Even the shortest estimates of the early phase of the body plan diversification are in the region of 8 to 10 million years. The 'explosion' is more generally given as ~20 to 25 million years, with an upper limit of about 45 million years.

This is ignoring the facts of increasing discovery of pre Cambrian organisms that have body plans that resemble primitive precursors of the later Cambrian creatures.

There isn't an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion due to long-time and common ancestor.

While some of the Cambrian is mysterious - and will likely remain so, given the fragmentary nature of the fossil record - there are multiple proposed explanations for why life underwent its extraordinarily rapid diversification during the Cambrian.

If you researched this in good faith, this is something you'd be aware of.

Here is in interesting article suggesting that a small but significant increase in oxygenation was one of the key triggers.

Here is another suggesting that ocean chemical composition, caused by a massive geological shift, was another trigger.

Here is another, suggesting a cascade of environmental effects triggered the event

Moreover, now the scientists are saying thedr creatures went extinct.

All Ediacaran species have gone extinct. Furthermore, many of the Ediacaran phyla are no longer represented in the animal kingdom. However, multiple Edicaran phyla remain.

How did the fishes appear then?

Again, the exact answer to this question isn't clear.

Briefly: Roughly 540 to 530mya, basal cordates and cephalochordates appear in the fossil record. These appear to be the earliest ancestors of what we'd now consider to be fish. From these primitive lancelet-like creatures, simple fish-like creatures (Haikouichthys, Haikouella, Myllokunmingia, Zhongjianichthys, ect, ect) evolved. From these more complex jawed fish evolved, and then so on and so for.

We also find these Cambrian fossils and fish fossils very high in the mountains. How did they get there?

Uplift is a thing. You are aware of it, aren't you?

 

[USincognito]

Your claim that fossils are found in a particular order isn't true.

That is wrong. Fossils are found in a particular order. We don't find them all mixed up.

Besides, we find catastrophes happened which changed the face of the Earth.

What do "we" find and what changes did these catastrophes cause?

Neither are the millions of years based on radiometric dating is true. Bad assumptions.

This is also wrong. Radiometric dating is a well established and understood scientific tool.

Sure, it fits a global flood theory if they became extinct.

The Flood isn't a theory. It's theology and there was no word-wide flood.

Not only that, they found marine fossils up in the mountains, such as Mt. Everest, above sea level. Were Cambrian fossils found there? Yep.

Plate tectonics and uplift.

 

[USincognito]

Nice. I answered your questions, but you just ignored and discarded how Cambrian evidence destroys evolution.

That's because it doesn't. Merely repeating your assertions like a mantra does not make them valid or factual.

 

[Jimmy D]

Nice. I answered your questions, but you just ignored and discarded how Cambrian evidence destroys evolution.

I see Gene2memE and USincognito have responded with similar answers to what I would have given so I'll leave it there for now.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's where you're wrong similar to atheists are usually wrong. Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon who was a creation scientist.

He may have been one of the early scientists, he may have been religious, and he may even have believed that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were a historical record. But that would not have made him a so called “creation scientist,” because he would have known the difference between theology and science.

Had he any means of investigating the origin of the universe (which he hadn’t), as a natural philosopher (as scientists were called in those days) he would have been seeking a natural account of creation, to run alongside of the theological account he also embraced.

 

[lesliedellow]

double post

 

[tas8831]

Weird - some glitch make James miss this post:

What makes you say your last paragraph?

Why did you ignore this:

"You asked someone yesterday if they have a background in biology, etc. Do you?"

What do you base it on?

My general knowledge of biology. Graduate education, have taught at the university level for 20-ish years.


You watched a video.

What does the bacteria do then when there is more of it than our cells?

Bacteria is plural. What do they do? Golly - I don't know... They eat... metabolize... die... undergo fission...
Why do you ask?

I raise two Malinois. Read the dogs' digestive system is different from ours, i.e. more acidic. Thus, I've been feeding them raw, meaty bones diet for many years and careful about feeding them human foods. As kids, we were taught that their tongues were dirty. Now, we're finding their mouths and tongues may have less bacteria than ours.

Great.

How does that make the gut a 'second brain'? Please explain - and don't be afraid to use field-specific science words. I also teach a class on scientific terminology to our freshmen.