Your Second Brain Is Your Gut

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So totally weird - James seems to have missed TWO responses:

It's interesting you do not quote the science, so allow me.
At this point, I am expecting to see some quoted science below:
The Cambrian Explosipn is how every current complex phylum appeared all together at one time in the fossil record. This contradicts what Charles Darwin hypothesized with his ToE of long time and slow, slow, slow evolution of lifeforms. 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.
... but all I saw was paraphrased creationist website disinformation.

As you imply that you know the science, please do explain:
1. how long the Cambrian explosion lasted.
2. How long the PRE_Cambrian lasted.
3. Which creationist website told you "every current complex phylum appeared all together at one time in the fossil record", and explain why you accepted that claim at face value.
Furthermore, there is not fossilized evidence of life, except for sponges, just below the Cambrian layer.

I suggest, given your fondness for facts and science, that you inform your YEC sources that they lied to you.
Just one easily-found falsification re: only sponges in the pre-Cambrian:

The Ediacaran Period

"Some are most like cnidarians, worms, or soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods. Others are less easy to interpret and may belong to extinct phyla. But besides the fossils of soft bodies, Ediacaran rocks contain trace fossils, probably made by wormlike animals slithering over mud."

Atheist scientists claim this is due to contamination. Above the Cambrian layer, no new species ever appears.

Patently absurd! I can see why you ignored my question as to YOUR background! LOL!
It's no wonder the finder, Charles Walcott of the Smithsonian Institute, put it under wraps.
More lies... Poor fellow - you have been deceived. Why do you take the claims of other creationists at face value when it is SOOOO easy to prove that they are wrong (and likely wrong on purpose, i.e., deceptive)?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And the creationist hypothesis is -

POOF from dust of the ground?

Please present your evidence and the proposed mechanism by which the POOFer turned silicates into cytochromes.
Hello? Dude? Genetic strand?
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟118,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.

The man died. This is the kind of science institution the Smithsonian is. Maybe he hid other valuable work, too, lying by omission? Why don't we just say that it was selective science by the Smithsonian?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟118,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.

So where's the evidence? Where's the common ancestor? Did Walcott or other Smithsonian geeks hide even more stuff? BTW I just found this because of your questions. No conspiracy on my part.

 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟118,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.

I mention 20 million years for the Cambrian. 20 to 25 millions years is still not enough for the long-time evolution is what I stated.

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

So, who led the atheist scientists and why did they decide to look into the Cambrian? I like your first link. Who drew those artist depictions of the Cambrian? Was it done during the time or after they decided to explore the Cambrian research?

ETA: Before I forget, the Nature article is from 2016. Just when did these scientists start to look into the Cambrian?

In your second link, it states Big Bang. This would be more modern and something Walcott or scientists of his time would not know about. It's also interesting that during his tenure at the Smithsonian that there was heated debate about uniformitarianism versus catastrophism and probably about creation science.

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.



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.



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

I'm tired. Just got back from seeing my daughter off to college and a trying Friday. Will look at your other comments and get back to you. It seems there is more to this than what I originally thought with Walcott and the Smithsonian.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The man died. This is the kind of science institution the Smithsonian is. Maybe he hid other valuable work, too, lying by omission? Why don't we just say that it was selective science by the Smithsonian?

What are you prattling about? I’m starting to lose my patience with you.

You claimed Walcott somehow discarded or ignored his Cambrian discoveries, this is obviously untrue given the amount of research he published on it throughout his career. You have absolutely zero evidence for your strange and slanderous accusation, now you double down and accuse him of lying by omission?

Either provide evidence for your accusations or retract them.

A stupid YouTube conspiracy video about the Smithsonian hiding evidence of a race of giants who used to “rule America” has no relevance to the issue, apart from to highlight your gullibility.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So where's the evidence? Where's the common ancestor? Did Walcott or other Smithsonian geeks hide even more stuff? BTW I just found this because of your questions. No conspiracy on my part.


See above, other than your strange claims, there is nothing to suggest “stuff” was “hidden”. (I’m referring to the Cambrian here, not giants, I couldn’t care less about YouTube conspiracy videos).
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So where's the evidence? Where's the common ancestor? Did Walcott or other Smithsonian geeks hide even more stuff? BTW I just found this because of your questions. No conspiracy on my part.


The evidence is in the rocks, it’s in thousands of research papers published over the last century, it’s in the hundreds of books published on the topic.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I mention 20 million years for the Cambrian. 20 to 25 millions years is still not enough for the long-time evolution is what I stated.

Why not? Why isn't 20 to 25 million years a sufficient time scale for the development of the ~18-20 or so new phyla represented in the Cambrian.

Also, there is fossil evidence that these phyla did develop GRADUALLY through the Cambrian. Quoting from the blog of a biochemistry professor:

"...most Cambrian organisms either have a mix of traits or have some traits diagnostic of a crown group, but lack other crown group traits. These organisms are more accurately placed as stem groups of the modern crown group phyla. Budd and Jensen point out that for most phyla crown group members do not begin to appear until 20-25 million years after the beginning of the Cambrian explosion, well after the “explosion” was supposedly finished. The crown groups evolved through the gradual acquisition of some traits and loss of others over tens of millions of years. This is quite a different picture from the creationist representation of the Cambrian explosion as an extremely rapid emergence of distinct modern phyla, with nary a transitional to be seen.

Indeed, most of the organisms we consider most notable did not appear in the Cambrian. Plants are the most obvious example to me–the Cambrian landscape was barren, if we overlook microscopic bacteria
."​

Rapid morphological diversifications are a FEATURE of evolutionary biology. Here's a partial list I made a couple of years back:

Avalon Explosion;
Devonian Explosion;
Mesozoic–Cenozoic Radiation;
Mesozoic marine Revolution;
Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution;
Great Ordovician biodiversification event;
Early rapid diversification of land plants;
Rapid angiosperm radiation;
Paleocene epoch mammal diversification.

To quote Christopher H. Martin and Peter C. Wainwright's 2011 paper on Trophic novelty: "Adaptive radiations have been central to evolutionary thinking since its inception".

So, who led the atheist scientists and why did they decide to look into the Cambrian?

... snip


ETA: Before I forget, the Nature article is from 2016. Just when did these scientists start to look into the Cambrian?

No one led the scientists - fossils from the Cambrian period have been a subject of active scientific research and debate since at least the 1840s. I learned about the Cambrian and Edicaran periods in middle school, in the 1980s. No one is hiding anything.

In your second link, it states Big Bang.

It does not state "Big Bang" - that's the third link. Did you get past the headline, to the part where they discuss rates of development of evolutionary novelty?

This would be more modern and something Walcott or scientists of his time would not know about.

While the Edicaran biota was really only discovered in the late 1940s, Walcott was perhaps the most significant pioneer of discovery of preCambrian life. It actually got him into a little controversy on occasion (which probably set this particular sub-field of paleobiology by ~30 years).

Quoting this 2000 PNAS article on the discovery of precambrain life:

The acknowledged founder of Precambrian paleobiology, Walcott was first to show, nearly a century ago and contrary to accepted wisdom, that a substantial fossil record of Precambrian life actually exists.

The topic of whether life originated before the Cambrian, and what form that life too, WAS a hotly debated subject in Walcott's time. It just happens that some of the most influential biologists of the period argued against it - and were then shown to be wrong when fossils of the Ediacaran biota started to be discovered in the late 1940s.
 
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟118,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
What are you prattling about? I’m starting to lose my patience with you.

You claimed Walcott somehow discarded or ignored his Cambrian discoveries, this is obviously untrue given the amount of research he published on it throughout his career. You have absolutely zero evidence for your strange and slanderous accusation, now you double down and accuse him of lying by omission?

Either provide evidence for your accusations or retract them.

A stupid YouTube conspiracy video about the Smithsonian hiding evidence of a race of giants who used to “rule America” has no relevance to the issue, apart from to highlight your gullibility.

Again, your complaint has nothing to do with what I said about Cambrian Explosion disproving evolution. I've already said this once and your response is arguing Walcott hiding the evidence or not. That's irrelevant and I gave you two chances to respond and still nothing, so will claim victory that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution of no long-time and no common ancestors.

Nothing stupid about the video when my link stated that the Cambrian wasn't studied until forty years after Walcott's death. Why don't you refute the points made by the video? Creation scientists claim that giants existed in the Bible like Goliath. The skeletons of giants are evidence to back up what the Bible states. Why did the Smithsonian destroy the evidence?


Walcott should have presented his work and come up with explanations. It's curious he didn't do this as it was important work for him to cover what he had discovered. He had his family do it with him instead of other paleontologists, geologists, biologists, zoologists and the like. He could have got them easily since he was Secretary of the Smithsonian. As for Walcott disregarding or hiding the evidence,

"The Burgess Shale after Walcott
It was not until the late 1960s—almost forty years after Walcott’s death—that paleontologists began to reconsider Walcott’s Burgess Shale classifications. Harry Whittington of the University of Cambridge and a group of colleagues, using mainly Walcott’s Smithsonian collection of 65,000 fossils, made a series of remarkable discoveries: several of the fossil animals had been erroneously classified as having modern affinities. This was the first challenge to Walcott’s assumption that all Cambrian animals belonged to groups today. Whittington found that while the Cambrian explosion did produce an abundance of diverse life forms that led to most of the animal forms known today, some animals that might have deserved their own phylum actually disappeared during this period. Whittington’s work inspired a renewed intense interest among scientists in the Cambrian Explosion."

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

"The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,[13] and in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin discussed the then inexplicable lack of earlier fossils as one of the main difficulties for his theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.[14] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks."

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

Since you have no patience nor any replies to my previous posts and this one except for your complaints, I will move on to others who are more interesting with their comments.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟118,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The evidence is in the rocks, it’s in thousands of research papers published over the last century, it’s in the hundreds of books published on the topic.

None of which you can explain.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟118,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Why not? Why isn't 20 to 25 million years a sufficient time scale for the development of the ~18-20 or so new phyla represented in the Cambrian.

Also, there is fossil evidence that these phyla did develop GRADUALLY through the Cambrian. Quoting from the blog of a biochemistry professor:

"...most Cambrian organisms either have a mix of traits or have some traits diagnostic of a crown group, but lack other crown group traits. These organisms are more accurately placed as stem groups of the modern crown group phyla. Budd and Jensen point out that for most phyla crown group members do not begin to appear until 20-25 million years after the beginning of the Cambrian explosion, well after the “explosion” was supposedly finished. The crown groups evolved through the gradual acquisition of some traits and loss of others over tens of millions of years. This is quite a different picture from the creationist representation of the Cambrian explosion as an extremely rapid emergence of distinct modern phyla, with nary a transitional to be seen.

Indeed, most of the organisms we consider most notable did not appear in the Cambrian. Plants are the most obvious example to me–the Cambrian landscape was barren, if we overlook microscopic bacteria
."​

Rapid morphological diversifications are a FEATURE of evolutionary biology. Here's a partial list I made a couple of years back:

Avalon Explosion;
Devonian Explosion;
Mesozoic–Cenozoic Radiation;
Mesozoic marine Revolution;
Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution;
Great Ordovician biodiversification event;
Early rapid diversification of land plants;
Rapid angiosperm radiation;
Paleocene epoch mammal diversification.

To quote Christopher H. Martin and Peter C. Wainwright's 2011 paper on Trophic novelty: "Adaptive radiations have been central to evolutionary thinking since its inception".



No one led the scientists - fossils from the Cambrian period have been a subject of active scientific research and debate since at least the 1840s. I learned about the Cambrian and Edicaran periods in middle school, in the 1980s. No one is hiding anything.

From Darwin himself. He inferred that an enormous amount of time and many, many generations of species must have come before the Cambrian. He worked it out to roughly “442 million years ago” by secular radiometric dating. So why weren’t any ancestors of these animals found as fossils in the Precambrian? We already saw they were mostly sponges. Darwin suggested the fossils had been formed, but that they had long since been eroded away. Since in most places rock really was missing between the Cambrian and Precambrian, e.g. Grand Canyon’s “Great Unconformity”, Darwin’s idea sounded reasonable.

Thus, the evos started a search to find the missing fossils. Precambrian rocks were searched for fossils, and the world was searched for a place where Precambrian rocks had not been eroded away. Instead, of the common ancestors, they found a more explosive Cambrian Explosion.

At which point, I have to state, isn't God's work wonderful? In addition to the fishes, seals, whales and other creatures, he created these other fascinating creatures during ancient times.

"The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,[13] and in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin discussed the then inexplicable lack of earlier fossils as one of the main difficulties for his theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.[14] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.

The first discovered Cambrian fossils were trilobites, described by Edward Lhuyd, the curator of Oxford Museum, in 1698.[15] Although their evolutionary importance was not known, on the basis of their old age, William Buckland (1784–1856) realised that a dramatic step-change in the fossil record had occurred around the base of what we now call the Cambrian.[13] Nineteenth-century geologists such as Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison used the fossils for dating rock strata, specifically for establishing the Cambrian and Silurian periods.[16] By 1859, leading geologists including Roderick Murchison, were convinced that what was then called the lowest Silurian stratum showed the origin of life on Earth, though others, including Charles Lyell, differed. In On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of a solitary group of trilobites, with no apparent antecedents, and absence of other fossils, to be "undoubtedly of the gravest nature" among the difficulties in his theory of natural selection. He reasoned that earlier seas had swarmed with living creatures, but that their fossils had not been found due to the imperfections of the fossil record.[14] In the sixth edition of his book, he stressed his problem further as:[17]

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer."

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

Creation scientists think that the evolutionists were still trying to fit their findings to Darwin's ToE. Thus, they had problems with coming up with an explanation.

What we know the Smithsonian hid were the Nephilim or giant humans. What I think Walcott hid was not presenting his findings. It seems as if he did his work with his family and by himself and not others.

We both learned of Cambrian Explosion because it was uncovered in the 1960s. Scientists started looking at the evidence again.

It does not state "Big Bang" - that's the third link. Did you get past the headline, to the part where they discuss rates of development of evolutionary novelty?

While the Edicaran biota was really only discovered in the late 1940s, Walcott was perhaps the most significant pioneer of discovery of preCambrian life. It actually got him into a little controversy on occasion (which probably set this particular sub-field of paleobiology by ~30 years).

Quoting this 2000 PNAS article on the discovery of precambrain life:

The acknowledged founder of Precambrian paleobiology, Walcott was first to show, nearly a century ago and contrary to accepted wisdom, that a substantial fossil record of Precambrian life actually exists.

The topic of whether life originated before the Cambrian, and what form that life too, WAS a hotly debated subject in Walcott's time. It just happens that some of the most influential biologists of the period argued against it - and were then shown to be wrong when fossils of the Ediacaran biota started to be discovered in the late 1940s.

See my comments above with Darwin. I think you're overstating your case. "Relatively little is known about the Precambrian, despite it making up roughly seven-eighths of the Earth's history, and what is known has largely been discovered from the 1960s onwards."

Walcott was long dead by then.

Precambrian - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Giant humans aren’t possible. The tallest man ever verified was Robert Wadlow and he had trouble walking . He was 8ft 11 inches tall


What do you mean 25 million years wasn’t long enough for evolution. The mammal radiation after the dinosaurs died took about 10 million years IIRC
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Again, your complaint has nothing to do with what I said about Cambrian Explosion disproving evolution. I've already said this once and your response is arguing Walcott hiding the evidence or not

I will make this my last post on Walcott then. You slandered him claiming that he discarded or covered up evidence of the Cambrian because it didn’t fit into evolutionary thinking.

This is a lie, his extensive publications show this and you have posted zero evidence to back up your claims apart from quotes like the one below, which show nothing of the sort.

"The Burgess Shale after Walcott
It was not until the late 1960s—almost forty years after Walcott’s death—that paleontologists began to reconsider Walcott’s Burgess Shale classifications. Harry Whittington of the University of Cambridge and a group of colleagues, using mainly Walcott’s Smithsonian collection of 65,000 fossils, made a series of remarkable discoveries: several of the fossil animals had been erroneously classified as having modern affinities. This was the first challenge to Walcott’s assumption that all Cambrian animals belonged to groups today. Whittington found that while the Cambrian explosion did produce an abundance of diverse life forms that led to most of the animal forms known today, some animals that might have deserved their own phylum actually disappeared during this period. Whittington’s work inspired a renewed intense interest among scientists in the Cambrian Explosion."

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

So Walcott wasn’t entirely correct in his work? Nothing about covering up or discarding there. What you have shown is that his extensive work was there for all to see, even if he wasn’t entirely correct.

Do you not think scientific knowledge should be refined and improved over time?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The first discovered Cambrian fossils were trilobites, described by Edward Lhuyd, the curator of Oxford Museum, in 1698.[15] Although their evolutionary importance was not known, on the basis of their old age, William Buckland (1784–1856) realised that a dramatic step-change in the fossil record had occurred around the base of what we now call the Cambrian.[13] Nineteenth-century geologists such as Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison used the fossils for dating rock strata, specifically for establishing the Cambrian and Silurian periods.[16] By 1859, leading geologists including Roderick Murchison, were convinced that what was then called the lowest Silurian stratum showed the origin of life on Earth, though others, including Charles Lyell, differed. In On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of a solitary group of trilobites, with no apparent antecedents, and absence of other fossils, to be "undoubtedly of the gravest nature" among the difficulties in his theory of natural selection. He reasoned that earlier seas had swarmed with living creatures, but that their fossils had not been found due to the imperfections of the fossil record.[14] In the sixth edition of his book, he stressed his problem further as:[17]

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer."

Why stop the quote from Wikipedia there? Did you not read the next sentence ?....

“Earlier fossil evidence has since been found....”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
From Darwin himself. He inferred that an enormous amount of time and many, many generations of species must have come before the Cambrian. He worked it out to roughly “442 million years ago” by secular radiometric dating. So why weren’t any ancestors of these animals found as fossils in the Precambrian? We already saw they were mostly sponges. Darwin suggested the fossils had been formed, but that they had long since been eroded away. Since in most places rock really was missing between the Cambrian and Precambrian, e.g. Grand Canyon’s “Great Unconformity”, Darwin’s idea sounded reasonable.

Thus, the evos started a search to find the missing fossils. Precambrian rocks were searched for fossils, and the world was searched for a place where Precambrian rocks had not been eroded away. Instead, of the common ancestors, they found a more explosive Cambrian Explosion.

At which point, I have to state, isn't God's work wonderful? In addition to the fishes, seals, whales and other creatures, he created these other fascinating creatures during ancient times.

"The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,[13] and in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin discussed the then inexplicable lack of earlier fossils as one of the main difficulties for his theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.[14] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.

The first discovered Cambrian fossils were trilobites, described by Edward Lhuyd, the curator of Oxford Museum, in 1698.[15] Although their evolutionary importance was not known, on the basis of their old age, William Buckland (1784–1856) realised that a dramatic step-change in the fossil record had occurred around the base of what we now call the Cambrian.[13] Nineteenth-century geologists such as Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison used the fossils for dating rock strata, specifically for establishing the Cambrian and Silurian periods.[16] By 1859, leading geologists including Roderick Murchison, were convinced that what was then called the lowest Silurian stratum showed the origin of life on Earth, though others, including Charles Lyell, differed. In On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of a solitary group of trilobites, with no apparent antecedents, and absence of other fossils, to be "undoubtedly of the gravest nature" among the difficulties in his theory of natural selection. He reasoned that earlier seas had swarmed with living creatures, but that their fossils had not been found due to the imperfections of the fossil record.[14] In the sixth edition of his book, he stressed his problem further as:[17]

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer."

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

Creation scientists think that the evolutionists were still trying to fit their findings to Darwin's ToE. Thus, they had problems with coming up with an explanation.

What we know the Smithsonian hid were the Nephilim or giant humans. What I think Walcott hid was not presenting his findings. It seems as if he did his work with his family and by himself and not others.

We both learned of Cambrian Explosion because it was uncovered in the 1960s. Scientists started looking at the evidence again.



See my comments above with Darwin. I think you're overstating your case. "Relatively little is known about the Precambrian, despite it making up roughly seven-eighths of the Earth's history, and what is known has largely been discovered from the 1960s onwards."

Walcott was long dead by then.

Precambrian - Wikipedia

Maybe if you discussed modern palaeontology rather than what was or wasn’t known over a hundred years ago it would be more useful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Maybe if you discussed modern palaeontology rather than what was or wasn’t known over a hundred years ago it would be more useful.

Do creationists ever do anything else than stop the clock fifty, a hundred, or a hundred and fifty years ago, so they can claim, “Nobody has answered....”? and then follows some nonsense which may have been correct in 1900.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟118,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Giant humans aren’t possible. The tallest man ever verified was Robert Wadlow and he had trouble walking . He was 8ft 11 inches tall


What do you mean 25 million years wasn’t long enough for evolution. The mammal radiation after the dinosaurs died took about 10 million years IIRC

Giants are possible if the Earth's environment was different. This is what's hard for atheist sceintists to believe because they think that it was uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism was true, i.e. observable, then creation scientists would be using it. However, we find that catastrophism is what shaped the earth. Today, we find evolutionists claim that catastrophism is what made the dinosaurs extinct. We find that there are mountains underneath the seas. We find stratification happened rapidly with the Mt. St Helens volcano.

Giants are explained in the Bible.

"Giants are mentioned in the Bible in several places (e.g., Genesis 6:4; Joshua 12:4). Og, king of Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:11); the giant people in Canaan that Moses’ spies reported (Numbers 13:30–33); Goliath (2 Samuel 21:19); and the Anakites (Deuteronomy 9:1–2) are all examples of giants in Scripture. We should keep in mind that the “giants” of the Bible were not forty-foot colossi who sat on houses and picked their teeth with elm trees. The giants of the Bible were tall—Goliath was maybe nine or ten feet tall—and they were powerful, but they were human. In addition to the biblical accounts of giants, there are three main sources of evidence for giants: written accounts outside of the Bible, archaeology and eyewitness accounts of archaeological finds, and graphic depictions of giants found in ancient art."

The evidence for nine to ten feet tall giants are found insubstantial material evidence that has fallen through the cracks of the establishment, some of which even resides in museums:
  • The ancient city of Ashtaroth in the Golan Heights has cut stone buildings with giant proportions.
  • Giant Inca mummies and golden garments over eight feet in length. Gold Museum, Lima, Peru.
  • Giant double headed axes on display in Baghdad Museum, Iraq.
  • Giant double headed axe from Cypress in the British Museum, London.
  • Giant neolithic stone tools found in Australia.
  • Two enormous petrified skulls found in anthracite coal bed in Pennsylvania.
  • Gigantopithecus blacki, numerous remains found in China, Vietnam & India. Estimated height is ten feet.
  • Meganthropus paleojavanicus (Paranthropus robustus) jaw and skull remains excavated on Swartkrans, Java in 1948, estimated to be 8 feet tall.

We also have the NY Times article.1890 NY Times Article: Race Of Giants Discovered In New York

There is the Giant of Castelnau who was estimated to be 11.5' tall.
Giant of Castelnau - Wikipedia

Stonehenge is hypothesized to be created by giants with giant tools.
Giants, aliens and team building: The most unusual theories about Stonehenge

>>What do you mean 25 million years wasn’t long enough for evolution.<<

Already explained #112.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟118,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I will make this my last post on Walcott then.

I'm not going to hold my breath. This is probably a lie based on how this has been your only argument. Not really much of argument against the Cambrian Explosion. Remember, you said this was my last post, so quit posting it ha ha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0