- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,940
- 52,603
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Kinda like demanding threads stick to science, isn't it?And that is the problem with debates with creationists, it must be on their terms or not at all.
There were fossils in the Ediacaran Era but they were unrelated to the Cambrian fossils and went extinct prior to them. There are some who claim a few may have survived but no evidence supports that view.Really, then how did the Cambrian fossils get there? Just poof! And there they were?
They are not. Do you think they should?
I've only known Hovind to publicly debate one actual scientist (Hugh Ross), and it was on Hovind's terms. In other words, Ross wasn't allowed to ask certain questions or point out things Hovind has said that show his ignorance. And that is the problem with debates with creationists, it must be on their terms or not at all.
I've only known Hovind to publicly debate one actual scientist (Hugh Ross), and it was on Hovind's terms. In other words, Ross wasn't allowed to ask certain questions or point out things Hovind has said that show his ignorance. And that is the problem with debates with creationists, it must be on their terms or not at all.
How can creationists be so gullible as to think that the best brains in the whole world [regardless of religion] have got it wrong but a man with a store bought doctorate knows what he's talking about? what planet do they live on?It should be noted, I think that Hugh Ross is a creationist, himself. The rare OEC variety.
Why would they not be? Why the sudden lack of precursors?
There were fossils in the Ediacaran Era but they were unrelated to the Cambrian fossils and went extinct prior to them. There are some who claim a few may have survived but no evidence supports that view.
The Ediacaran 'Fauna' appear in the fossil record about 585 million years ago and persist till the start of the Cambrian, when they vanish abruptly. The fossils are clearly of multicellular organisms with pre-defined structures (like animals) but do not closely resemble any known post-Ediacaran group, living or fossil. No Ediacaran organism seems to have produced any mineralized tissue, such as bone or shell. These fossils are rare, but have attracted a great deal of attention. The have been found in England, Nova Scotia, Mexico, Namibia, Australia, Russia and China, amongst other places.
The fossils from Doushantuo are all microscopic, and come from early in the Ediacaran Period (635-551 million years ago). In addition to the 'embryos' there are achritarchs (a form of algae), ciliates, seaweeds and what may be sponges and soft corals as well as a possible planktic larvae that has been named Vernanimalcula. Since the only known large organisms at during the period are the Ediacarans, it is fairly obvious to conclude that the embryos are those of Ediacarans. However, this is t best a guess; there is no actual evidence to link the embryos to the Ediacaran Fauna, so they may represent a part of the life-cycle of some as yet unknown organism, which co-existed with, or even predated the Ediacaran Fauna.
Based upon this there is no real evidence to suggest that the Ediacarans either were, or were not, true animals. They remain a mystery.
http://sciencythoughts.blogspot.com/2011/12/ediacaran-fauna-not-animals-after-all.html
According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. One species that existed previously turned into something else over time, and all species have come into being in this way.
I'm still not understanding why the direct ancestors of Cambrian life forms are not found in pre-Cambrian layers. Or are they?
They are not. Do you think they should?
Why would they not be? Why the sudden lack of precursors?
Because you had it backward. Decedents don't precede ancestors.
Now, again, why are the direct ancestors of Cambrian life forms not found in pre-Cambrian layers? Why would they not be? Why the sudden lack of precursors?
Post #229.
You are acknowledging in the post that there are no precursors to the life forms suddenly found in the Cambrian, aren't you?
How is providing examples in that post of precursors to the Cambrian acknowledging no precursors? Really? How do you arrive at that?
You offered "foraminifera Platysolenites" as an example. Are you suggesting that this is the ancestor to the life forms in the Cambrian?
No, the National Academy of Science article is. If you object to their findings, perhaps you need to send a letter to the editor presenting your alternate evidence.
Yes, move on and believe that evolution a process devoid of intelligence produced their "best brains" which when taken to the only conclusion that can be made from such a process is that those best brains can only think that which they "can" think and they have no reason to believe in reason at all.How can creationists be so gullible as to think that the best brains in the whole world [regardless of religion] have got it wrong but a man with a store bought doctorate knows what he's talking about? what planet do they live on?
Never mind, one more generation and creationism will be confined to little pockets of believers dotted around the US
and America will then be free to move forward and join the rest of the civilised world.
No, they are not. They are claiming this was found in the early Cambrian.No, the National Academy of Science article is. If you object to their findings, perhaps you need to send a letter to the editor presenting your alternate evidence.
No, they are not. They are claiming this was found in the early Cambrian.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?